Yeah, said that, or “you’ll work on this as a contractor” as contracting isn’t classed as being employed by the hirer in some countries. The confused language makes them look like they could give you tax and social security problems, which might deter some good people.

I holidayed in a village in France and got around fine by a mix of bus, bike and train, and it looked ok to do that if you lived there and worked, but most of the locals still drove because there were occasional journeys where cars really helped and once you decide to sink €000s into a car, it’s then cheap to use it for each extra journey instead of wait for a bus or train, or take time to pedal or walk a bit to stops.

So I think it could be possible even in villages, but some services will need making easier to reach without cars.

I certainly know plenty of places where local governments aren’t even trying, of course.

No, but could you feed the website with mismatched tags through something like tidy first? That error looks like maybe it’s expecting xhtml and getting html. Maybe the site is declaring one, then using the other. Lots of software won’t care because it’s a pretty common error, but some panics.

Thank for elaborating my comment, but I never said never, only that it’s usually better to avoid it.

And yven if you think it’s provably impossible to get an Error back now, someone or something may change an underlying function behaviour on you in the future and invalidate your proof. There are ways to limit that with version control and pinning and so on, but it’s easy for an assumption to be overlooked when merging in new versions of things.

So yes, I agree, better to use ? at least here, but like all guidelines, there may be times where you break it, accepting the risks.

They used .unwrap(…) in production, which can escape notice until there’s an error, then it panics. It’s better to always handle the potential error, or at least use ? to pass the error back to the caller.