Scala doesn't really provide much of what is mentioned in the article.
It still has nullable types, side-effects aren't tracked in the type-system (so any function can potentially do anything) and the presence of sub-typing has several unpleasant consequences, for example: lack of full type-inference, generally more complex type signatures than in Haskell and having to deal with covariance vs contravariance.
If Scala provided all the things that were mentioned in the article exactly as is, Scala would become essentially yet another Haskell and couldn't do many things that Haskell can't (e.g. seamless usage of Java libraries, real OOP support or performant imperative code). And this would probably restrict it to the academic-niche.
Anyway, while I generally agree, I'd wish that people would stop bringing up type-inference in these discussions. It always makes me question whether those persons have understood the topic at all.
It still has nullable types, side-effects aren't tracked in the type-system (so any function can potentially do anything) and the presence of sub-typing has several unpleasant consequences, for example: lack of full type-inference, generally more complex type signatures than in Haskell and having to deal with covariance vs contravariance.