I call that the curse of examples. Often conflated with "being in the weeds." Is frustrating, as people will jump on you with the X-Y problem style discussions. Which, fair that that is sometimes apt. Probably more often than makes sense, honestly.

Still, I did the callout that I did not mean that as an argument on if they really wanted it because I think it is fair to explore the intent as stated. And I appreciate how hard it is to make examples.

To your credit, you did explicitly call out your example in the blog post as something you wouldn't _actually_ want to do, so it didn't bother me. I've found that I'm more receptive to contrived examples to demonstrate a point if they aren't trying to hide the fact that they're contrived, so if I'm trying to convey a concept via example, sometimes I'll lean into the fact that the example is unrealistic to make it clear that the lack of utility shouldn't distract from the idea. As a silly example of this (see what I did there?), I might implement a trait with a `len` method that always returns 0 on strings to show how to resolve ambiguity when adding a method with name that a type already has in Rust.