I guess my beef was mostly in response to the word "lockless", which I'd hoped meant "not using any wait-for-other-thread type semantics" but in this context seems to mean "implementing locking without using OS-provided locking primitives, although standard library is fine."

I was hoping that there was some cool new trick I'd missed or fundamentally different way to do concurrency than locking. I get disappointed easily in cases like this. :/