> Are we seriously using LoC as a measure of productivity again?

Yes, sadly. Because its how everyone justifies LLMs. "Look at how much code it writes!" is the only measure they can come up with to sell its usefulness, completely forgetting that it'll be more useful if we started talking about how much code they remove.

I don't think it's LOC for productivity, it's LOC which have passed safety scrutiny. We're talking about the kind of code which would pass muster on something like NASA's safety assessments, probably. Takeaway: it's a huge codebase which has been audited for safety.

> What does this even mean?

If it means what I think it means, you take every engineer working on it (and maybe the years of research involved) and add it all up. Say you have a room with about 10 engineers with 10 years of experience per developer, you can claim there's 100 years of developer experience between all of them (maybe the overlaps not unique enough and its more like 30 to 50 years? but in this case I think they're rounding up, and I assume it means thousands of engineers involved in the project) that's how I took it.

My first interview in tech I was asked what the heck I was even doing with the D programming language, followed by the remark that in the next room (where all the devs were) there was at least 100 years of experience between everybody there, and not a single one knew what D was, my manager clearly did, which cracked me up.

> What does this even mean?

It means over 18,600 engineering hours have been spent working on vehicle safety. This is a pretty common metric.

You missed the "21+ billion safety transistors safety assessed" gem.

I don't even know what that was supposed to mean. Hopefully all the safety transistors in the safety graphics card of my safety-PC were safety-assessed, too /s