> It is a common mistake to misuse an OO type system this way. So common, I would argue, that it suggests there is a fundamental problem or question of utility

> It is a common mistake to misuse an OO type system this way. So common, I would argue, that it suggests there is a fundamental problem or question of utility with using type systems for correctness. You're right that this has nothing to do with a _static_ type system specifically but they're almost always used together that when you say "static" you are almost always heard as "statically typed", so the point is moot in my experience.