This is how Rust has always defined it. Linus is specifically saying that "Rust people" don't understand what "safe" is but... they do, he doesn't. He could say "Rust defines it as X, the kernel needs Y" but he doesn't say that, he implies that Rust people just don't understand the word "safe" or that they think Rust is safer than it is, which is simply not true. As I said, quite ironic given history.
> I wouldn't blame their discussion partners for not knowing what the developer means when they talk about some code being "safe".
I mean, I would definitely blame them if they're also going to go on an insulting rant about their definition being wrong.
> without people getting too hot under the collar about their personal hang-ups
Impossible, in my opinion, until a ton of people retire.