As the TechCrunch article I shared says, that warning was added only after the multiple vulnerabilities listed were found and publicised, and the original article in this post didn’t mention the vulnerabilities or it being experimental either.
Reminder that this is the same app that a few weeks ago was found to be advertised as secure when it was still experimental and without being audited, and for which multiple serious vulnerabilities were found before they added the disclaimer saying it was experimental:
Unfortunately, the lead developer of Ladybird, Andreas Kling, has engaged in transphobia and enforced misogynistic language in his previous project’s documentation, SerenityOS. This post documents and links to multiple examples: https://toot.cat/@EveHasWords/114081930465217200
Long story short Activity Pub only pulls the content it needs from remote servers when it needs it and can choose how to handle media (serve the original or cache and proxy). It already is similar-ish to a CDN.
AT-Proto is super complex, but my understanding is that a new server (app in AT-Proto parlance) needs to copy everything beforehand from all others, and needs to constantly replicate everything, wether it will be served or not, making the data transfers intractably massive.
Going forward, there will be a new Reels feed that includes videos that your friends have liked or commented on, so you can see what your friends have watched and what they like. Your friends will also be able to see the videos that you have liked, which is something to be aware of.
[…]
Instagram used to have a dedicated Activity feed that offered up this information, but it was removed several years ago. It is not yet known if Instagram plans to provide an opt-out for the new feed.
This is a bit terrifying privacy wise. I’ve heard dubious things back when the activity feed was a thing about how it was used. This feels like a recipe for outing people in personal ways they didn’t expect, especially after they probably got used to Instagram likes not being exactly anonymous but close enough as they didn’t get disclosed to other people.
Language isn’t everything. While Rust provides some features and safety that C doesn’t while being roughly equivalent in performance, the algorithms that developers choose will dominate the performance impact on the program.
GNU core utils has decades of accumulated knowledge and optimisation that results in the speed it has. The Rust core utils should in theory be able to achieve equivalent performance, but differences in the implementation choices between one and another, or even something as simple as the developers not having prioritised speed yet and still focusing on correctness could explain the differences that are being reported.