The whole list sounded a bit strange to me - it looks more like a list he compiled after the fact to explain why he chose Rust, rather than some criteria he had decided on before evaluating several languages. Of course, I can sympathize with wanting to use a language that tries new concepts, but there's something to be said in favor of languages like Go that make a point of only using tried and tested concepts and making sure that they work well together too...

People are rarely willing to adopt 10% improvements. Every improvement, no matter how small, needs to be taught to the larger community of users and other stakeholders; it is relatively rare for you to be the sole stakeholder, and thus the cost of adopting the improvement is rarely worth the improvement itself, endangering making improvements. Only 10x-style improvements have a good chance of widescale adoption. Thinking that you can short-circuit this by passing 10% improvements in widely adopted languages is the mark of someone who never tried to get language features like the "var" keyword adopted in multi-million-line Java codebases.

Wanting to encounter new concepts feels like a basic requirement for intellectual curiosity.

I suppose there's a difference between wanting to encounter new concepts, and wanting to find them as a part of a programming language you've decided to learn and use, though.