Again, I don't want to argue against you using or enjoying Rust, I would merely like to point out that it does, demonstrably, not solve all programming problems ever...
No it doesn't. Miri is for unsafe code. There's no UB in safe Rust by design. Any UB caused without unsafe is considered a bug to be fixed.
The sanity of future devs, though? I do care about that, though, and there is a huge problem with that in the Rust 'community'
Just to find agreement about the terminology, wouldn't we call all code that is not inside an unsafe block "safe?" If so, then adding "generally" is superfluous, right?
If not, then how is "generally safe" different from "not inside an unsafe block?"
I'm sure the Idris compiler has bugs somewhere too. If the OP actually programs, they are violating their rationale (I'm quite sure assembly or assembled binary aren't ok either).
It's a concatenation of several logical fallacies in a row; equivocation, straw manning, binary thinking about safety, several others. It's hard to pick the main one, but I'd go with the dominant problem being a serious case of binary thinking about what "safety" is. Of course, if the commentor is using anything other than Idris for all their programming, they're probably not actually acting on their own accusations.