It is ridiculous to equate a recommendation and a mandate.
If you don't know, Consumer Reports is paid by groups interested in encouraging the government to apply regulations to certain areas. A bike helmet manufacturer may pay them to create a report, host events, and otherwise lobby on their behalf to e.g. create regulations about people needing to use bike helmets.
It is my understanding that many Rust advocates, security researchers, and members of the Internet Society are effectively advocating/lobbying for partial government mandates of 'memory-safe languages'[0]:
> It’s not yet possible for government procurement to only buy memory-safe software. For example, you can’t say routers must be memory-safe top to bottom because no such products currently exist. But it may be possible for the government to say that newly developed custom components have to be memory-safe to slowly shift the industry forward.
> This would require some type of central coordination and trust in that system. The government could ask for a memory safety road map as part of procurement. The map would explain how the companies plan to eliminate memory-unsafe code in their products over time. The carrot approach for memory safety may include not just decreased future costs in cybersecurity, but also reliability and efficiency.
[0] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2023...
I am willing to bet that most of those “Rust advocates” are programmers who code in Rust but I’m fine with not calling them that. I agree that good programmers should be able to work in different languages, operating systems, countries.
For example, if this had already happened we may find today that Java is certified for use but that Rust is simply not allowed, while maybe Swift is because of Apple's backing of it.
If you have some point to make please do so earnestly. Layering in levels of irony makes any point you're trying to make difficult to understand or follow, even if labelled with /s.
This is going off-topic, but there is a style of internet arguing that I have come to seriously dislike. It is one where instead of someone making a point, they make the point they wish to detract and simply flag that they are being ironic. In doing so they don't actually advance the point they're trying to make, they assume that the audience already understands and is sympathetic to that point, so they simply put up a target to scoff at.
I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, or if you're just struggling to make a point about worrying about government intrusion into private business.
What is a quite real possibility. For example, there are plenty of places out there that can't stop expiring passwords every 1 or 3 months because it's in one of those lists. But I do agree that complaining about the recommendation because of this is completely out of topic, the focus should be on the rule that actually mandates it.