In the update videos posted on the Ladybird YouTube channel it's said that they have exhausted most of the low hanging fruit in terms of correctness. Browsers and the web standard have a very long tail of odd behavior that you need to implement. I could be wrong, but if I had to guess they'll stall at a point where it's just good enough that some people will make it work, but it's not really useful for general use.

True, but the longer the tail the less likely that you are affected by it.

Since a couple weeks ago it became possible to view all major commercial news websites I use in my country.

If it works for most websites and you only have to reach for Chrome sometimes it would still be perfectly usable.

Ladybird is extremely slow, it's far from being competitive at all.

They're prioritizing correctness to the spec over speed and are still 'officially' in pre-alpha. It's still to be determined how well they can bridge the gap there.

For casual web browsing it's plenty fast enough already to do a lot of things, but they're a relatively small team fighting against decades of optimization.

All browsers are fast enough once you block all the useless web bloat.

But Ladybird's explicit goal is to work on the "real web", i.e. without blocking all that bloat

What? No one is expecting Ladybird to be fast at this stage. No one is claiming that it is. Ladybird is competitive because of the speed of which it is improving.

Very unfair to look at ladybird and call it slow, when its not even alpha and shouldn't be used yet

Remember you're experiencing a debug build of pre-alpha software.