Author here. I don't see any problem with this

Well, as a starter C is rarely considered as "strongly typed". Statically typed yes, but strongly typed not so much.

With C23 (nullptr, auto typing, typeof) and C11 (generics) it got more guarantees and type-related primitives. You can still do void*, but you are strongly discouraged from it.

    #include "pretty.h"

    void print_int(int value){
        println(value);
    }

    int main (int argc, string argv[])
    {
        long value = 23849234723748234;
        print_int(value);
    }

How is this strongly typed?

    $ cc test.c -o test && ./test
    -1411401334

And to be clear, weak vs strong isn't a boolean property but a spectrum, but would be hard to argue with a straight face than C is a strongly typed language.

C is likely the only example of a programming language that is clearly statically typed while at the same time being weakly typed. For a reason: as your example shows, it's a really bad idea (but understandable for a language from the 60's).

C is from the 1970s.

Java is weakly typed in its generics, despite being statically typed. I’m sure there are more examples.

I don't think Java is weakly type even in generics. You can't "fake" your way with types like in C, you need to explicitly cast, which fails if you try to make an invalid type cast.

The more pedantic compiler flags you introduce, the more strongly typed it becomes.

C is strongly typed in some areas in that ISO C requires a diagnostic if you mistakenly use a struct foo * where a struct bar * is required.

It's weak in many areas, such as, oh, that you can implicitly convert an out-of-range floating point value to an integer type and get undefined behavior.

Linkage in C is not type safe. An extern int x declaration in one translation unit can be matched with an extern double x = 0.0 definition in another. Linkers for c typically accept that without a diagnotic: the program links.

That's pretty clearly said jokingly