Kamikaze Rusher

Probably documents from HP’s atrocious support site

Or ICE in the last six months

Seriously. There are better ways to ensure privacy with identity verification.

Similar experience here. Some companies just want to pin a scapegoat should they be held liable. Others are just assholes from top to bottom.

You did your due diligence. You almost got burned. Decide for yourself if it’s worth it next time. Not every act in good faith receives a good response.

I’m all for jumping ship on the grounds of this being an overreach. However there just aren’t any good alternatives to Discord which would entice the general public from following suit.

Discord has the advantage of being a very frictionless user experience. You make one account and can join whatever servers you want thanks to its centralized design. It has file sharing, gif and video support, voice channels, screen sharing, API support with websocket events, and a hefty amount of bots to ease management.

There are other solutions but they don’t cover the same amount of features. Some focus on voice, some focus on chat, and some try to do as much but the experience isn’t quite robust. It’ll be like Reddit users and the API fiasco that people thought would be its downfall: the activists will leave but the general community won’t care enough, or aren’t tech-savvy enough, to be bothered.

Some states have already begun to require sites to detect connections from VPNs and block them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpns-and-they-have-no-idea-what-theyre-doing

The last two points are the kind of design advice I need to see. I’m probably so used to the C/C++ concept of passing by reference to prevent copies of complex data being generated that I forget how Rust’s definition of a reference is different.

Eh, I’m not entirely sold on that idea.

I think they do a good job of pointing out “this is a behavior/feature of Rust you need to understand.” However they can send you down the wrong path of correction.

The compiler error mentioning static lifetime specifiers of &str demonstrates both. It indicates to the developer that ownership and scopes will play a significant role when defining and accessing data. The error though will guide them towards researching how to define static lifetimes and possibly believe that they will need to set this in their functions and structs. Each time you look at questions about this error in places like Stack Overflow with example code you’ll find suggested solutions explaining that a manually-defined static lifetime isn’t necessary to resolve the problem.

This is my experience every time I return to learning rust. I’m guessing that if I used it more often than once a quarter with hobby projects I’d stop falling into the same traps.