> IMHO a better name for the keyword would have been actuallySafe.
You've said this a couple of times but it would be much harder to shame a dev for having too many `actuallySafe` blocks in his code, and someone getting prompted to add such a block would think "oh, this makes it actually safe? good!" The scary name is integral to the feature. This whole bit about the name being 'wrong' is something you'll only hear in the context of answering the specific complaint about how Rust actually isn't safe at all because it has "unsafe" everywhere. This rat's nest of non-technical storytelling is a good hint as to what the feature is actually about.
