You calling his point BS, but also strongly agreeing with it.
I guess you find it too obvious. But while it's obvious to many, there seem to be many who do not understand it. Issues involving rust often get derailed to pointlessness when rust's safety guarantees are treated as an absolute.
I'm only agreeing with the fact that there are no absolute guarantees. Not that his use of the fact in the point he makes has any relevance...
If somebody had said "The earth is round, therefore we should not care about getting lost and GPS, because you always can always keep going and end up where you started on a sphere anyway", then I would have also "stongly agreed" to the first factoid, but think the overall point BS.
Accepting the idea that rust guarantees aren't necessarily always good is needed to accept the idea that those guarantees might need to be relaxed, or at least don't necessarily justify linux kernel changes.
The idea that rust guarantees aren't necessarily always good is completely orthogonal to a condescending diatribe about how "there are no absolute guarantees", and totally needlessly connected to "go back to kindergarten" and "stop believing in Santa" BS.