The article is not even remotely suggesting removing type information. On the contrary, it's talking about some ways to augment a type checker with different grammar or ways of constructing APIs.
No, but you can always encode this augmented information in types to make it explicit, and possibly help the compiler make optimizations. Using a weaker type when you can use a stronger type is just as bad as removing type information.
> No, but you can always encode this augmented information in types to make it explicit
Technically yes, but not all type systems make it practical, or really relevant e.g. you can encode nullability in a type in java… but your reference to your Optional is still itself nullable.
