With all due respect to Michael Palin, "this isn't an argument ... it's just contradiction."
Perhaps, for the benefit of those of us observing if nothing else, it might be beneficial to identify some concrete examples to discuss before proceeding.
I dislike when a discussion turns into "I have to teach you the basics now". I'm just not willing to engage in that most of the time with strangers on the internet because they usually don't want to be taught, they want to be right.
Explaining that you can express complex dynamic lifetimes in Rust using 'unsafe' and module-level safety is a waste of my time because it's empirically true.
But you are engaging with strangers on the internet. You're just not doing it in a way that's particularly edifying. Indirectly insulting me and others doesn't help your case on that front.
Let me turn it back on you. By refusing to educate people on what you think they got wrong, you come across looking like just what you're worried about: someone who just wants to be right.
If your goal is to defend Rust, I would suggest you either teach for yourself, or share links to others teaching the thing you want to communicate but don't want to type out, or, if neither of those, then to simply keep your peace and let someone else do the responding. Speaking for myself as an on-and-off Rust learner, I've got to say that the single biggest frustration I've experienced with learning the language is wading through all the low effort gainsaying in order to find the nuggets of digestible, practical advice about how to effectively use the language for non-toy problems. It's not that I can't do so, per se. It's just that it's really hard, and perhaps even counterproductive, to work up the motivation to wade through all the snark and invective when my original purpose was to try and unwind at the end of the day.
In my experience, the vast majority of examples where that fails is because of two reasons: project evolution that doesn't spend time re-evaluting memory managemnt together with the new requirements on the data, or inexperienced C coders. So that goes to my last point in my original post, yes as an industry there are use cases where rust is better because of the provably safe memory management (let's forget unsafe for the moment). But as a language you _can_ safely model those situations in C esily. The problem is that the solution is not robust to change. If you don't agree with that it will be me who doesn't know how to take what you say seriously
I don't even know how to respond to this seriously. I guess just imagine me pointing to every blatant instance of this not being true.