I like how you made this comment, and then emailed me the link to the article, asking whether it actually represents something for self-modifying systems.
Now, as to whether this actually represents an advance... let's go read the LtU thread. My guess is that the answer is, "this is an advancement for self-modifying reasoning systems iff we can take System U as a logic in which some subset of programs prove things in the Prop type, and those Prop-typed programs always terminate."
However, System U is not strongly normalizing and is inconsistent as a logic.
So, no.
But also:
...Anyway, the big deal here is:
"Our techniques could have applications... to growable typed languages..."
Curry-Howard tells us types are logical propositions. Mathematicians from Bayes to Laplace to Keynes to Cox to Jaynes have told us probability is an extension of logic or (as I prefer) logical truth/falsehood are limiting cases of probability. Alternatively, probability/logic are measures of information, in the algorithmic information theory sense. So a "growable typed language" seems it would have obvious benefits to machin
Self-Representation in Girard’s System U, by Matt Brown and Jens Palsberg: