I'm willing to bet that it's AI. It soft-contradicts itself quite often, emphasising that C++ is "Performance First", but then also claiming stuff like "Rust achieves memory safety with zero runtime overhead".

Edit: What I am trying to say is that I have seen text like this in LLM output quite often, if the LLM is mixing text from different sources in its training data.

Also, there is just wrong stuff in the text itself, not only in the conclusion. For instance the claim that Rust's type system makes data races impossible. They are easier to avoid, but there is nothing stopping you from writing data races... Here, for instance, have a data race in safe Rust...

The whole premise is wrong, since it's based on the presumption of C++ and Rust being effectively generational siblings, with the C++ "designers" (charitable) having the option to take the Rust route (in the superficial narrow aspects covered), but choosing not to do so. When the reality is that C++ was the intellectual pollution product of "next C" and OOP overhype from that era (late 80's/ early 90's), resulting in the "C with classes" moniker.

The lack of both history (and/or evolution) and paradigm talk is telling.