I don't know that I'd throw a whole field under the bus like that (I'm reminded of similar accusations against students of sociology and gender studies) but I acknowledge this author isn't doing his profession any favors.
I maintain that this article is eerily similar to something produced by an LLM, but maybe I need to reexamine my priors.
- The "contrastive negation" with em-dashes in: "But the basic concept of a 15-minute city is not really a city at all. It’s an enclave — a ghetto – a subdivision."
- The extended discussion of business regulations seemed out of place: "I also believe that cities should be freed from the business regulations that make it difficult..." This really read to me like someone directed an LLM to make sure to include these arguments rather than this naturally arising during the human writing process.
- The writing itself (as noted elsewhere in this thread) is vague and hard to follow.
It certainly seems probable this was the case for some groups. In general though, this just seems like a view that oversimplifies human history to critique the present rather than a detached description of what we can know.
A few things AFAIK anyone has to grant about this period:
- Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers lived all over the world, under vastly different climates, for ~100,000 years.
- These humans were anatomically modern in every sense. They had lives every bit as complex as ours.
- Human cultural, political, and social structures are and have always been inherently diverse.
- Humans have always impacted and managed their environments for better and for worse.
- The Neolithic Revolution occurred independently in multiple places over generations as a series of choices by individuals at least roughly as intelligent as we are.
- Humans who adopted agriculture came to out-populate those who didn't.
The idea that hunter-gatherers lived consistently affluent lives and enjoyed plenty of leisure time as a general rule doesn't neatly fit this picture for me. How is it more likely than the idea that these people lived basically evenly along a spectrum of fluctuating and diverse conditions, at the mercy and grace of natural systems and social trends?
Perhaps depending on the context some human groups lucked into a life of luxury, while others lived painful lives consumed by the anxiety of dwindling supplies, all as an accident of climate patterns, the spread of disease, or even human-caused overconsumption.
Even in early societies that won a Garden of Eden in the geographic lottery, what's more human than to invent new complex problems to stew over based on generational trauma, or simply wild speculation about a world we will always have limited understanding of? Perhaps some group of humans highly valued their downtime hobbies while others were obsessed with arbitrary hierarchies, wars to obtain slaves, or settling petty disputes between powerful families.
Agriculture at the very least provided predictable trade-offs that smooth out the previous extremes, and we can't know if on balance it was a strictly negative or positive change. Since then, however, I think it's safe to say that the lives of everyone I know is better off than a practitioner of early agriculture.
The version of the claim I believed is that Sub-Saharan Africans (especially as of ~2000 years ago) basically don't have any Neanderthal DNA.
Your follow-up doesn't appear to contradict that (of course this wouldn't hold when populations start mixing in modern times and wouldn't have ever held 100%) so I was confused.
However the article does in fact dispute my previous belief:
>The researchers found that African individuals on average had significantly more Neanderthal DNA than previously thought—about 17 megabases (Mb) worth, or 0.3% of their genome.
This is as opposed to 1-4% of genomes for populations outside of Sub-Saharan Africa.
>They also found signs that a handful of Neanderthal genes may have been selected for after they entered Africans' genomes, including genes that boost immune function and protect against ultraviolet radiation.
>The best fit model for where Africans got all this Neanderthal DNA suggests about half of it came when Europeans—who had Neanderthal DNA from previous matings—migrated back to Africa in the past 20,000 years.
"The past 20,000 years" is pretty broad and seemingly includes modern era exchanges, but AFAIK that can't account for selecting Neanderthal genes or for how widespread Neanderthal DNA already is.
>The modern American self is best defined by two Enlightenment thinkers who never met but have been arguing in our heads ever since.
This reads to me a little like: "The distracted boyfriend meme can be found at the helm of the Western mind whenever we encounter betrayal and disloyalty."
I get that this is more of a trope or a shorthand than literally saying that a certain thinker invented the idea of a good person being defined by their actions, but to me it's worth saying that these concepts and ideas are probably as timeless as language, not something invented a few hundred years ago, not something invented by Plato.
I don't see your points as necessarily in conflict with the article at all.
The diminishing power differential between regional/great powers seems to be exactly in line with what's being said about the shrinking incentives for conquest and the illustrative quagmires of Russia and America's foreign wars.
The ability for regional powers to coalesce feels like it underscores the way geopolitics have changed in exactly the way the author is arguing. Instead of a new Asean Empire that neatly fits into the patterns of a rising power from the 19th and 20th centuries, disparate polities with shared interests cooperate in a way that preserves their independent sovereignty and resists challenges to the status quo.
I can't speak to the author's sympathies with Project 2025, but if there is some related bias I didn't catch it on a first read where I wasn't aware of it. The mentions of "unvarnished unilateralism" and "U.S. strategy is shedding values and historical memory" and "democracies rotting from within" seem to imply Beckley has some idea of the existential dangers the current administration poses to American hegemony.
The view appears to be that the only credible rival to America (China) faces demographic headwinds that America doesn't to the same degree in trying to capitalize on any broader decline.
Let's ignore the headline itself for a moment and try to take the rest of the article at face value.
The idea that is being plainly communicated here is that there's a single system of symbols that is so well-understood that it gets passed along to human populations in Siberia that then cross the Bering strait as well as the isthmus of Panama, and these populations over this period maintain this system with such fidelity that they're recognizable as descending from the SAME system of symbols that entirely separate populations in Europe and Southern Africa are also using.
I don't think an alternative intepretation is reasonable to take away from the "Consistent doodles" infographic or the phrasing like "early humans as far back as 40,000 years ago also developed a system of signs that is remarkably consistent across and between continents".
This is either earth-shaking news that demands an entirely new understanding of human heritage, or it's very obvious pseudo-science.
I read through this book relatively recently and agree with the praise here for the core idea that legacy code is code that is untested. The first few chapters are full of pretty sharp insights that you will nod along to if you've spent a decent amount of time in any large codebase.
However, most of the content in the last half of the book consists of naming and describing what seemed like obvious strategies for refactoring and rewriting code. I would squint at the introduction to a new term, try to parse its definition, look at the code example, and when it clicked I would think "well that just seems like what you would naturally choose to do in that situation, no?" Then the rest of the chapter describing this pattern became redundant.
It didn't occur to me that trying to put the terms themselves to memory would be particularly useful, and so it became a slog to get through all of the content that I'm not sure was worth it. Curious if that was the experience of anyone else.
He could have chosen a different word besides "complexity" but I don't really think it would have affected much. The subjective easy/hard is specifically what Ousterhout is trying to talk about.
Ultimately the problem he is (and all of us are) facing is that "good software design" can't really be measured with the right linting ruleset or static analysis. So if you're trying to break the concepts down each level, while still maintaining a scope that should include all software, that probably means it's impossible not to come off as squishy and non-specific at several points. I still think he strikes a really good balance in general here.
I agree that there could be more discussion around context and audience. Ousterhout says "if you write a piece of code and it seems simple to you, but other people think it is complex, then it is complex", but then what can possibly be done if everyone on my team was replaced with new hires who had next to no experience writing code? Did the same codebase go from simple to complex?
A genius architect/Formula 1 engineer can design a building/engine that fits all the requirements astonishingly perfectly, but if the builders have difficulties understanding it, or later contractors can't figure out how to maintain or fix anything, then it's only a perfect design in theory and an awful design in reality. It's not a nice-to-have to make people's lives a little easier, it defines the success of the project. The genius architect/engineer can insist that the complex design reflects the underlying domain as much as they want but at some point they will have to back that up to someone else who isn't a genius.
Obviously, writing code such that a first year comp sci student can understand what's happening and can start contributing immediately is absurd, but at the same time nobody builds anything in a vacuum. There's a certain legibility required within any context you're designing something for.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as "communist" countries are in fact, Marxist-Leninist, or as I've recently taken to calling them, "state capitalist"
Personally, I think more healthy skepticism like this is needed in startups. Everyone being completely convinced they can pivot to the next Uber for X is what scares me that there's a bubble and makes satires like HBO's Silicon Valley so poignant.