I believe that 9,000 years ago there wasn’t as distinct a pole star due to axial procession. Celestial north would probably have been somewhere between Vega and Tau Hercluis with a fairly wide separation.
If you define fall as the size of the gap. You could also take it as acceleration towards the barycenter, which would be the same. These are indistinguishable for everyday objects so could argue that the word “fall” could be interpreted either way.
That is a concern, but this makes invariants something the compiler can reason about more easily, since they happen at function boundaries and are distinct from regular code, unlike “vanilla” assertions.
The post assertions do look very similar to a unit test, but the pre assertions seem really useful; it can sometimes be difficult to know every code path that leads to your function, and though tools exist for this, assertions on inputs help you catch errors arising from unusual conditions.
This seems like it’s mostly syntactic sugar for assertions, keeping them at the interfaces of the function (in and out).
It can also be sometimes useful to have these conditions right there alongside the implementation and not just somewhere else in your unit tests.
There is a great deal more to learning a language than its alphabet, and English is probably one of the worst languages to learn that use the Latin alphabet, with many inconsistencies and exceptions in grammar and pronunciation. The reason so many people learn it is because they have to, not because it's easy to learn or use.
When I was a Perl programmer, in our shop we amended the motto "There's more than one way to do it" to "There's more than one way to do it, but most of those ways are wrong."
The Perl community themselves eventually extended the motto to "There's more than one way to do it, but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either"