From the article: "The findings reveal three recurring patterns of misplaced trust in unsafe code: trusting code not to panic, trusting user-provided implementations to be correct, and trusting the underlying system."

The call to "panic" is an effect and can be checked at compile time. Haskell does this with MonadError class, marking up code that may throw.

Rust has Turing complete type system for years and still does not have effects of any kind.

To be fair, "trusting user provided implementation" is also has something to do with effects. Proper type system would require user-provided implementation to use only certain effects and nothing else.

So two of of found shortcomings are directly related to the type system and, specifically, to the choice of original Rust implementors to not to distinguish between pure and effectful computations.

Do Rust implementors highly competent? Yes, of course! They work on Turing complete type system. Will they eliminate two of three recurring patterns? I strongly doubts so. It is a design decision and these are especially hard to change. Changing it will also break all Rust source code produced to that point of time.

Is it a scandalous situation? For me, it is. The situation is so dire, actually, that "highly competent people working" has to be defended with trivially true fact that "bugs exist in complex software no matter how hard you try," instead of addressing core problem.

You're pointing out that there can exist a language other that Rust that is even safer, and prevents even more classes of bugs. That's trivially true, of course, but this language doesn't currently exist.