First, a quick disclaimer: I don't know Rust (or Go). So I'm going to focus on only things that are obvious to a programmer unfamiliar with the languages discussed in the post. I'm sure a Rust or Go expert could find additional errors, based on the accuracy of what I can verify.
The heap is a hierarchical data structure used to store global variables randomly
This is just...wrong. First of all, the heap isn't necessarily hierarchical—there is a wide variety of techniques used by memory allocators. They (and the source they appear to have gotten this from) seem to be conflating the data structure called a heap with the memory-management concept of the heap. Based on the phrasing in the blog post, ("The stack is a linear data structure... The heap is a hierarchical data structure..."), it's pretty clear where they got this information:
Second, the heap stores more than global variables (it stores anything allocated off the stack, which includes the storage for any dynamically allocated objects), and it doesn't store them "randomly": it uses a memory allocator. Different allocators use different strategies, but I'm pretty sure storing things in random locations isn't one that any reasonable allocator uses. They refer to this "random process of allocating memory" again later, as well.
Local variables, functions, and methods reside on the stack...
No, functions and methods are stored in the code. Maybe they mean function/method parameters?
...and everything else resides on the heap
When a literal is pushed onto the stack...
Rust handles memory efficiently by storing literals (integers, booleans, etc) on the stack
The author seems to have no idea what a literal is (it refers to writing a literal number, string, etc. in code). They're almost certainly thinking of a primitive. And primitives could also be stored in the heap, depending on how they're used.
This could be detrimental to code security if external dependencies use the unsafe keyword.
Why is this specific to external dependencies? It's just as detrimental if you do it in your own code.
Rust, with the standard library and borrow checker, would be better to use in building resource-intensive applications that need handling.
It's unclear what it means for an application to "need handling."
Rust for building applications that require low-level interaction where performance and memory safety is paramount
you can consider using Go for programs where memory management isn’t a big deal and you care about performance
Which one do I use when I care about performance?
Rust and Go are fairly new, powerful languages often compared in many terms including memory management.
Go and Rust are quite incomparable when discussing memory management
Okay, this one is a cheap shot and not actually an error. But the phrasing is awkward: are they comparable or not? They probably meant different.
The code in this section does not match the output. The code uses a primitive integer, which does implement the Copy trait. The output uses a string, which does not. The text switches which one it's talking about back and forth.
Finally, the article contains numerous images of text. The author and editors should strongly consider reading Why should I not upload images of code/data/errors when asking a question? Try shrinking your browser window down like you were on a mobile device and try to read them. And naturally, they all have blank alt text, as is standard for the blog, so they're completely inaccessible to users with screen readers.