The first two is the same article, but they point out that certain structures can be very hard to write in rust, with linked lists being a famous example. The point stands, but I would say the tradeoff is worth it (the author also mentions at the end that they still think rust is great).

The third link is absolutely nuts. Why would you want to initialize a struct like that in Rust? It's like saying a functional programming language is hard because you can't do goto. The author sets themselves a challenge to do something that absolutely goes against how rust works, and then complains how hard it is.

If you want to do it to interface with non-rust code, writing a C-style string to some memory is easier.

You phrase that as if 0-5% of a program being harder to write disqualifies all the benefits of isolating memory safety bugs to that 0-5%. It doesn't.

Is three random people saying unsafe Rust is hard supposed to make us forget about C’s legendary problems with UB, nil pointers, memory management bugs, and staggering number of CVEs?

You have zero sense of perspective. Even if we accept the premise that unsafe Rust is harder than C (which frankly is ludicrous on the face of it) we’re talking about a tiny fraction of the overall code of Rust programs in the wild. You have to pay careful attention to C’s issues virtually every single line of code.

With all due respect this may be the singular dumbest argument I’ve ever had the displeasure of participating in on Hacker News.