I didn’t say they were bad. I was pointing out that:

1. Blaming a user for not hitting the same results on search engines is a flawed argument; my search did not present the book that was linked in the original comment, even while using the title of the book as the search phrase. It instead was a mix of forums, social media, and YouTube tutorials, all of which do not have the same depth as a good book.
2. The material presented in some of the “Rust for C++ programmers” videos and posts focused more on direct translation of syntax. This is good “first step” material to make the user more comfortable, but again they didn’t cover the common pitfalls that a C++ developer will encounter when they’re still approaching Rust with a C++ mindset.

That said, the guide you’ve shared was in fact on the first page of my results, and is definitely a good example of the type of content that is available. What I think should take place is a compilation of similar guides and books to be posted either in the Rust forums as a pin or a YouTube playlist in the official channel, perhaps even with a small list of suggested crates to review the source code of as pristine examples.

There are lots of guides, tutorials and documentation.

is one I found using a tool called search engine…

Strange. That’s not what I get when I search for “Rust for C++ programmers”. I get flooded with anecdotal accounts/posts from people on Reddit and YouTube talking about their love or hate towards Rust.

Then there’s 3 hour-or-longer videos about Rust which target C++ devs directly. Two are from 2022 and 2019 with one from 2023. Only the 2022 video starts from basics with features that a C++ dev would actually need to understand, like ownership, borrowing, and references. One jumps right into multithreading ideas by discussing mutex. The other jumps into how everything is made “easier” because the compile does borrow-checking instead of having the developer manage it.

These videos probably aren’t bad, but they don’t touch on the larger “gotchas” that C++ maintainers will be scratching their head at, like explicit lifetimes, inevitable headaches with error handling, and reference/target mutability. Some of them are a good start, but they mostly focus on just technical features. It’s difficult to find a resource that helps you learn how to plan out your project early on so you’re not refactoring later due to the topics mentioned earlier.

And to be honest, if you are unable to use them to learn rust, maybe your c++ skills isn’t that impressive either.

And this is why 6% of non-Rust users have cited the community as a barrier of entry. Immediate pettiness and hostility rather than trying to get the best resources into the hands of newcomers.

I’m going to upvote you for providing the viewpoint that models which have the manual releases hide them to prevent damage occurring from someone who instinctively pull on it to open the door. In the case of young children, they won’t know enough to not do the same thing they would do in other vehicles to open the door.

However, obscuring them from view also means they’re at high risk in the event of an accident which kills the power. Trying to calmly walk a child through the steps may not work. I don’t know how much force is needed for some of the release latches (and I’ll assume not a lot is required).

Cybertruck also has manual releases but the rear doors hold it in the map pocket. Better but still not in a sensible place when someone is panicking.

Ok. So that’s the Model 3.

How about the Model Y?

Ok. Not all Model Ys have rear manual releases. I’ll assume the best and believe that only certain countries have this design.

How about the Model X?

So it’s behind the speaker grille. Uncertain if you need a screwdriver, but I’ll assume not. However it is hidden away from sight.

How about the Model S?

Oh, it’s under the carpet.

So yeah, turns out, I’m not making shit up, and there is indeed empirical evidence for it.

I was talking to a Tesla owner about this and they argued that if the window is electric then there’s no difference making the door electric. They couldn’t understand that the door itself can be operated independently of the rest of the vehicle.

Making windows electric causes a safety tradeoff. You get ease of operation while losing the ability to open the window in the event of an accident (where power cannot be supplied). However you can still unlock and open the door manually as an alternative escape option. This also applies in non-accident scenarios (dead battery).

Making doors electric is nothing more than a safety risk. From the inside you might have access to a manual release latch, but some doors require you to unscrew things first. Any emergency situation where you need to exit as soon as possible and the power is lost almost guarantees that you’ll be unable to safely escape.

Should’ve sold some copies of the Christmas Star Wars episode

Oh 100% that’s what they meant. It’s just something that caught my attention as it almost appears to be an oxymoron.

In practice, “microtransaction” can mean many things. A small price, a purchase of non-unique content, or even a small quantity of unique (non-base) content. So yes, upgrading to the “deluxe” edition can fall under that description. But calling the “deluxe” content upgrade a “micro-transaction” almost appears contradictory. So I had a little chuckle while pondering this before becoming upset at how broad (and expensive) said “micro”transactions have become.

deluxe edition as a MTX

I spent a few minutes analyzing this sentence alone. Admittedly I read the rest of your argument and respect your opinion. It’s just that this is stuck in my head.

Buying the deluxe edition through a micro-transaction? My mind wants to classify this as an oxymoron. Admittedly a lot of microtransactions aren’t really micro by any stretch of the imagination but this just stands out.