143 karma · joined February 13, 2011
Proofs of features are notoriously harder than usage, but I think this illustrates something about how heavyweight the ownership design is and the complexity is forces users to content with.
I would push back on the "shared state with locks vs isolated state with message passing" framing. Both approaches model concurrency as execution that needs coordination. Switching from locks to mailboxes changes the syntax of failure, not the structure. A mailbox is still a shared mutable queue between sender and receiver, and actors still deadlock through circular messages.
The mutability in these examples is almost entirely accidental complexity. The state changes are necessary for real world applications, but representing them as in-place mutation is a choice the tooling made for you.
However, the author's theory doesn't point to any solutions, so it is not interesting. I could also point to many other factors that may have changed US (and global) values and priorities aside from wars, so I don't find this theory compelling in itself either.
I used to say that if you have more than a page there better be a Nobel prize on the 2nd page. However, these days if you put more than a page worth of stuff in your resume then chances are few people will read that far. Maybe that's okay if you're keyword stuffing for machines to parse your resume, but I suspect you're applying for the wrong jobs if you do that. Just the highlights please.
That said, cash transfers can help bring people out of poverty. A flat redistribution of wealth is not the right way to get that effect, but some kind of direct cash assistance is not remotely a wasted effort.
Maybe this all works great in metro areas with mild weather, but it's not going to work well in severe weather, poorly/wrongly marked roads, "offroad" areas, and construction zones, which is still a lot of the country at this point (and most of 3rd world). I've driven in some backwards places where there are no maps or GPS, and I've driven in near-whiteout conditions, and I'm sorry but no robotic system today can deal with all those variables.
It's also not going to handle human trade-offs well--e.g. sometimes it's better to crash your out-of-control car than to ram into a schoolbus full of kindergarteners.
You can argue these are all low probability situations or that eventually AI will solve them all and you're probably right, but I'd argue these situations are going to prevent full adoption for much longer than 5-10 years. It's going to take near-human intelligence to overcome all of them. Until then, humans will still drive cars, and probably a lot more often that you can imagine, even if everyone wanted the utopian vision to be true.
Apparently Churchill's crotch looks more like a face than his actual face. And Stalin gets the cold shoulder.