Yes, but in C++ we would simply not have asserted the result has_value instead of has_error and instead returned some implicit memory corruption. Or, I think that is the author's argument. (I don't subscribe to that point of view.)

Yeah, I don't really get that argument if that's what the author is trying to claim. If there's a language where a programmer mistake can't have bad consequences, C++ isn't it, so either it would need to be combined with an argument that C++ programmers are just better (which seems like a bold claim that would require evidence, on top of not really being about the language anymore), or it isn't really a point against Rust.