Is this comment your less subtle one? Or are you still working on the less subtle criticism? Because I don't see how the analogy of that story fits, who is the seller and who is the target of flattery and deception?
I can't tell if you think the tech sucks, if you think despite all the presentations and demos there somehow is no tech, if you disagree with something about the practicality... what is your actual argument?
He's implying nobody says the mill design is bollocks because they don't want to be viewed as stupid for not seeing the genius in this obviously dysfunctional design
He ends the talk begging for criticism. Listing issues is appreciated-- other comments do so (see talk about capabilities & how this isn't new since the 80s)
Much of the Mill is not new; we don't bother filing those parts. Much that is not new is very good, and was abandoned for reasons unrelated to the actual merits. The first compiler I ever wrote was for the Burroughs B6500, which in 1970 had better security than any current commercial architecture. That compiler is still in use.
Security in architecture is the history of a race to the bottom, driven by newbie customers not knowing there was such a thing and the economics of chip-making. We may hope that there are fewer newbies now. That leaves economics. To a large extent the Mill has been an effort to make old ideas economically viable to today's customers.
