I agree in general with the list, but there is some stuff I disagree with still. For example, the very first section: "Work on more than one thing".
Like a CPU thread, if you’re responsible for multiple streams of work, you can deal with one stream getting blocked by rolling onto another one.
This is written from the perspective of the developer, not the stakeholders. Compared to a CPU, you are a single thread. You cannot work on two things at the same time. What this is referring to is not parallelism, but a form of concurrency. Like a CPU thread, when two tasks are being executed concurrently, one task is always blocked. This means that while you, the developer, are always working, you also are always blocking at least one task, meaning you are also always blocked on at least one task.
Instead of working on two tasks at once, pick up the second task only when the first becomes blocked.
I believe this might be what the author was trying to convey, but the title, some wording in the section, and the bullet point at the end ("Working on at least two things at a time, so when one gets blocked you can switch to the other") contradict that and give the impression that you should always be working on two or more things at a time.
use as normal a developer stack as possible.
This, I mostly agree with, but I disagree with the wording. You should be using the same tools as the rest of your team when the tool matters. However, using different Git interfaces shouldn't matter. I'd argue the same holds true for editors as long as the editors all have the features needed for the project.
For application work, some variety in dev environments can help you find bugs sooner even. Using different environments for development lets you test different environments naturally. For services, this is less relevant.