And, yet, somehow, functional languages have been doing this since forever? I jest, I jest! There's an entire field of study focused on this! I'm no expert, but imagine you've got a singly-linked list, and we're going to allow only push_back() and pull_back() (no insert()). Let's go ahead and let multiple owners have at this list. If A does "pull_back()" what really happens is A has a local "tail" pointer that moves back along the end of the list and has a new belief about the end of the list. When A does "push_back()" it begins attaching links at its new tail. Since the links just "point backwards" without modifying the old links, this doesn't mutate the list "as is", it only mutates A's version of the list. So, if B is also looking at the list, it could just start doing "push_back()" and add its own "tail". The result is a data-structure that's a "bunch of shared singly linked lists" in a bush structure that's more akin to a tree than a singly linked list.

You can do the same thing with binary trees and other structures. It's more fiddly, and there's definitely places where single-ownership allows mutability "under the hood" for real performance gains, but that's the basic idea.

Interesting, I didn't think about that, so it is copying on write but on a more granular level