The second sentence of the post is the thesis: "I think that most of the time when people think they have an issue with Rust’s syntax, they actually object to Rust’s semantics."

By removing the ugly "syntax" (and thus also removing important semantics), they're showing that the reason Rust has a lot going on syntactically is because the code is actually expressing important semantics. You can't have a nicer Rust syntax without losing semantics in the process.