Albeit modulated since I'm sure lcamtuf is not actively advocating for memory unsafety the way I'm sure some people are.
But I don't understand why anyone is bothering to state any objections to memory safety. Modulo the issue of old code bases in memory unsafe languages that can not be simply discarded or rewritten... I personally have done translation projects between languages, I am well aware of the costs involved and freely acknowledge them... there simply isn't any argument in favor of memory unsafety. There's no benefit to having memory unsafety around. If anything memory safety is a positive benefit, or to put it another way, programming in a memory unsafe language is positively harder than a memory safe language.
The proof of this is the existence of the "unsafe" package/module/library/whatever that exists in your language, meaning that you can selectively call out to it whenever you do in fact need to. That means the rest of the time you don't.
So why give any cover to memory unsafe languages? There's simply no argument for them. You do not need a language that lets you access outside of array bounds. You do not need a language that lets you run a pointer everywhere without regard for bounds. Even if you need bounds check removed or something, you only need it in a particular tight loop, not pervasively throughout your language. There is nothing, no positive advantage they offer that overcomes the overwhelming, massive costs they've concretely imposed on society as a whole.
And I'm Mr. Everything Has Costs And Benefits. But the benefits are so, so wispy here and the costs so large and concrete.