To be strictly accurate, Rust and Haskell both have strict type systems. It's just that like you mentioned, the types are often inferred at compile time via type inference rules.
This differs from dynamically typed languages as inferred types always have a statically known type while dynamic types have a type which is interpreted at runtime and which can be reinterpreted.
But yes, you are correct. The comment you replied to does not make sense. Haskell is not dynamically typed at all. (Though as with any statically typed language, you can create a Grand Unified Type that stores everything and pretend it's dynamic.)
What I meant was that types may be inferred but that is not the same as dynamic typing.
Overall, "strictness" is a really bad word to use, because it has thousands of different meanings. But on the context of types, I don't know of any better synonym.
Ah yep. Meant static there and fumbled my words. That's what I get for browsing HN first thing in the morning before coffee.