How's that a problem is the product works and there's less friction to develop? Let's say it produced buggy code and the cost of not enabling it was great than enabling, am sure projects would enable again..

And users would know this, and make their own choice whether to rely on the project.

Removing agency from users of your program or programming language is not a recipe for success.

We can allow glouwbug to speak for him/herself, if you are right, or quietly and honestly accept the embarrassment, and learn from it.

The easiest way to "get around the borrow checker" is not to use Rust at all. We have evidence of people using it, so they are proof positive that not everyone will "just take that route".

If you meant not everyone, but some people, then yes, we know there are people releasing programs not coded in Rust, many quite successfully.