It was presented to show the "just use modern c++" counterargument to discussing the unsafety of c++ isn't a great argument. There are modern parts that are still unsafe.

Fair enough. But tatersolid seems to be condemning the entire language, which is a step too far for the evidence given.

40 years of security vulnerabilities in C and C++ code is plenty of evidence to condemn those languages as unfit for most purposes.

The evidence is overwhelming that it is not possible to write non-trivial C or C++ that is safe in the face of adversarial input. Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Linus, etc. have all tried for decades and failed miserably. All the resources and expertise in the world still results in unsafe software when C and C++ are used.

std::string_view is supposed to be idiomatic C++, though.