I think this can be explained by underlining the differences between could, would, and should.

The blog states the fact that at least some C compilers already offer the necessary and sufficient tools that characterize "memory-safe" languages, and proceeds to illustrate examples. This isn't new. However, just like "memory-safe" languages enforce narrow coding styles through a happy path that is expected to prevent the introduction of some classes of vulnerabilities, leveraging these compiler features in C projects also requires the same type of approach.

This isn't new or unheard of. Some C++ frameworks are also known for supporting their own memory management and object ownership strategies, but you need to voluntarily adhere to them.