When I read their comment I thought of how much annotation of static types you have to do that compilers in other languages are smart enough to figure out on their own. Consider the following snippet in C#:

    public static IList<Ephraimite> FindEphraimitesToKill(IList<Ephraimite> ephraimites)
    {
        IList<Ephraimite> ephraimitesToKill = new List<Ephraimite>();

        foreach (Ephraimite ephraimite in ephraimites) 
        {
            if (ephraimite.Speak("shibboleth") == "sibboleth")
            {
                ephraimitesToKill.Add(ephraimite);
            }
        }

        return ephraimitesToKill;
    }

Now, the same in (imperative-style) OCaml:

    let findEphraimitesToKill ephraimites =
      let ephraimitesToKill = ref [] in
      List.iter (fun (ephraimite) -> begin
        if speak(ephraimite, "shibboleth") = "sibboleth" then
          ephraimitesToKill := !ephraimitesToKill @ [ephraimite] 
      end) ephraimites ;
      ephraimitesToKill;;

See how much less we had to specify the type of what we're handling here? And things would have gotten easier if we used functional-style OCaml, but that's not entirely a fair comparison.

So hypothetically it should be possible to write a C# compiler that would, if type annotations were omitted in some places, be confident enough to assign a sensible default, which is why we call the current version verbose. Although I suppose it's slightly more complicated than that. (Interfaces, if we want to have them, need to be explicitly declared as there are potentially many interfaces that could be used for a given object, and the rigidity imposed by redundant type declarations could help with the health of large and long-lived codebases.)