Isn't that statement kinda cutting both ways? How is a culture of safety checks and risk mitigation not part of an ideology itself? I mean sure it is a good and sane ideology with the goal of saving people's lives and reducing the occurance of unwanted, unplanned freak accidents, but I'd rather have my airplane's code written by an fanatic follower of that ideology than by e.g. a pragmatic corner cutter that values their own time or the resources of their company more than the fulfillment of checks and rituals.

If we are looking at the typical way code is written for safety critical applications I'd argue that 99% of the work stems from a safety and check culture that many of the "move-fast-and-break-things"-crowd would definitly call an ideology.

Of course it can be bad if ideology starts to inform a developer's decisions without any rational connection to the real world, but I wonder: what kind of development process would be completely without ideology? After all if our code is meant to impact the real world it will always be informed by our image of the world, the way we relate to society. Someone who hacks up a companies web framework in a horrible manner that endangers the data of their customers certainly has an ideology. Someone who makes soundness checks and proofs on open source software in their spare time also certainly has an ideology.

Maybe I put too much into the word here, but I have yet to meet and unideological person.

A better way to put it would be "how does the frequent need to use unsafe code in embedded square with Rust programmers' general desire to avoid unsafe code?"

But then it's a boring question and the answer is obvious - they still try to avoid it.