It's not really up to me, it's up to the judgment of Trump and whoever pulls his strings.
But looking at historical precedent, maybe something like the Iran-Contra affair that landed Oliver North in jail while sparing Reagan from any accountability.
I guess a good rule of thumb would be whether the scandal will involve jail time.
There are several ways to achieve an effect equivalent to operator overloading in Rust, depending on exactly how you want the overloading to work.
The most common is
fn do_something(arg: impl Into<Args>) {
...
}
This lets you pass in anything into the function that can be converted into the Args type. If you define the Args type yourself then you can also define any conversion that you want, and you can make any construction method you want for it. It's a small touch more explicit than C++'s operator overloading, but I think it pays off overall because you know exactly what function implementation all different choices of arguments will be funneling into.
I'll admit there's one thing from C++ that I frequently wish were available in Rust: specialization. Generics in Rust aren't exactly the same as templates in C++ but they're close enough that the concept of specialization could apply to traits and generics. There is ongoing work to bring specialization into the language, but it's taking a long time, and one of my projects in particular would seriously benefit from them being available.
Still, Rust will have specialization support long before C++ has caught up to even a quarter of the benefits that Rust has over it.
You'd be amazed at how resistant most people are to anything that feels unfamiliar, even if it's good for them. Coal and oil jobs are familiar, green jobs are not.
It should be as simple as you're suggesting, but sadly it isn't.
But only if pattern matching were included, otherwise they would be as unpleasant as C++'s std::variant.
Rust makes sense though.
A better language wouldn't have any need to use POSIX signals in this way.
I agree 2/10. The 2 points are because it was an interesting experience to be resurrected from the brink of death by the IV drip in the hospital. Also seeing my eyeballs full of blood was pretty metal.
"Lungs aren't really inside" is not an argument that I thought I'd be confronted with.
If you find that your lungs are not inside your body then I urge you to seek immediate medical attention.
Except it's actually an "Every language and library that provides this feature" problem because literally no one was aware that this sanitization problem even existed, and Rust is among the first to actually fix it.
And there's a difference between "HOW DARE YOU USE A PLASTIC STRAW, YOU EVIL FILTH??" which is what this person probably hears though the filter of their own subconscious guilt and insecurity, versus "Hey folks, we should really consider whether we actually need all these plastic straws, because even the little improvements in our consumption habits can add up to valuable impacts," which is what's actually being said.
Violence implies that harm is happening. In mind, the most harmful thing about neutering a human without their consent is the subsequent trauma that the person needs to live the rest of their life knowing that they will not be able to reproduce. Non-human animals don't carry that burden and therefore won't experience that trauma. They can go about the rest of their lives in perfectly happy ignorance.
The physical aspect of the operation is a negligible concern. They recover from that just fine. Animals of all kinds need to undergo surgical operations for many reasons, and it's not considered violence.
As for humans with severe hereditary genetic disorders, I personally think they should consider making a choice to not reproduce. If parenthood is something important to them and they're qualified to be a parent, they should consider adopting. I have no inheritable genetic issues myself but I'm still of the mind that I should choose to adopt instead of giving birth even though there is a part of me that wants to have a biological child very badly. But I need to consider what's good for humanity as a whole, and too many humans on this planet is not good, so I believe I should avoid contributing to that problem.
So the difference is, a human can be reasoned with and make their own decision. Whether or not people ordinarily do make reasoned decisions about important matters is another concern; the salient point is that they can.
I'm not going to force a person to make the decision that I personally think is right, but at least an attempt can be made. With non-human animals we can't even make that attempt. And when it comes to people whose mental faculties are so severely limited that they can't comprehend the situation they're in, that kind of person is obviously not fit for parenthood and likely can't function independently. At that point I hope their caretaker will make sure that they aren't exposed to opportunities for unintentional childbirth.
Or would the band name be "Actual Dragons"?