I don't agree with the examples in the post. To me, they all seem to support the case that the compiler is doing the right thing and flagging potential issues.

I don't agree with the examples in the post. To me, they all seem to support the case that the compiler is doing the right thing and flagging potential issues. In a larger and more complex program (or a library to be used by others), it's a lot harder to reason about such things. Frankly, why should I be keeping all that in my mind when the compiler can do it for me and warn when I'm about to do something that can't verified as safe. Of course, designing for safety is quite complex and easy to get wrong. For example, Swift's "structured concurrency" is an attempt to provide additional abstractions to try to hide some complexity around life times and synchronization... but (personally) I think the results are even more confusing and volatile.