This seems a bit disingenuous. To people with a bit of understanding of cybersecurity, they are admitting that they haven't solved it; but to most of their customers, it will sound like they fixed it and are being cautious.

Of course, some forms of redundancy would be better than others--in cases where people aren't sure which particle to use, it probably isn't doing much good. However, language evolution is able to achieve some optimizations, and I suspect the particles people know tend to be the most important. For example, the many sushi or shellfish particles might sound particularly silly, but if you're in those industries, maybe they are helpful in maintaining important distinctions in a noisy kitchen/market, or in written records. If you're a customer you probably don't know them, and you don't need to.

Epistemic status: Wild-ass guessing from my armchair.

- TS with Vue: SFC are not really working (it's showing a style change as if the whole stylesheet were replaced with a mostly-identical stylesheet).

- Rust: It doesn't seem semantic at all. It's showing a lot of character-level insertions and deletions that seem worse than how git-diff or GitHub would break down the changes.

It doesn't seem ready yet for what I'd like to use it for.

Also, CRDT's don't provide synchronization for free. They ensure that all concurrent modifications will be merged somehow. If the data being synchronized has any structure, it requires careful CRDT-aware data model design to ensure the merging is semantically reasonable (or that, in the worst case, incompatible changes produce a detectably broken state).

You've piqued my curiosity. No syntax highlighting?

I'm not complaining though; we're entering a new golden age for people who like learning the intricacies of ISA's and microarchitectures!