...to send everything it knows about me to government agents and hackers. My primary security practice is being too boring to care about.

You can have all the innovation you want, but innovation isn't enhanced by allowing you to confuse meters with feet or by allowing you to divide by zero. Certain thing should always be forbidden if they can be detected by the compiler and the compiler can be helped by language rules amenable to correctness. This doesn't limit innovation it just minimizes obvious (or not) flaws.

The code may be technically correct but if it is hard to read it will also be hard to update in a safe and efficient manner. If you think code never has to be updated then you haven't been working in software long.

But what if I WANT to design my bridge wrong? What if I want my blueprints to be misunderstood so that it could be built incorrectly and collapse after the first good thunderstorm? I should be allowed to do that right?

That's basically what you're arguing.

Ada (not ADA) is widely used in the Aerospace industry if that's what you mean.

I better get my pre-order in now!

Our petrol costs $NZ2.20/L. It's been over $2 for years now.

Translation:
Our gasoline costs $7.24/gallon. It's been over $6.50 for years now.

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Diablo 3 is better now. Or so I've heard. I was gifted it and its expansion not long ago and it's just as fun as the first two but with better graphics and sound.

You can use a T-Mobile phone as a hotspot. It's $10 a month.

What makes a language good? I'd argue that most will let you do what you want. And you may be proficient in any given language. But what makes one language better than another is the following.

When you are given someone else's unintentionally screwed up code, is the language easy to understand so that you can find the bug(s) in a reasonable amount of time? Does the language disallow questionable code so that the other guy is less likely to screw up in the first place?

I'm fairly certain that if I'm the only person working on a project C++ would be great. Not my first choice but not bad by any stretch. But if I have to debug someone else's code, C++ would not be fun.

We always get a false impression of the reliability and quality of old stuff, because the stuff that sucked and broke got thrown out years ago, and the only things that we still encounter are the ones that were well made. It's true with old houses, old cars, old furniture, pretty much everything. I'm sure there's a law for this phenomenon with some pompous dude's name on it but it's a well established and discussed phenomenon.

I believe the term you are looking for is Survivorship bias.

Just charge a tax on the total value of whatever is bought/sold. Like 0.1%. This would eliminate any incentive for the micro-game of HFT.

Really? How much are you willing to offer for this motivation?

One possibility is that puzzles that are hard for computers must also be hard for people. That's undoubtedly true...

Not really. I would imagine something like a riddle would be easier for a human than a computer. On a more mundane level, computers, even with robotic bodies, so far can't interact with the world we live in as easily as humans do. Yes, they can do some things we can't but the reverse is also true.