A notable and common thing about this article is that it confidently declares futures/promises are good for parallelism, but this is wrong - they are flawed because they introduce priority inversions.
To schedule tasks properly, you need to know who is waiting on them as early as possible. With a promise, you only know when you get to the "wait()" call, which is too late.
The correct solution is called structured concurrency.
Depends on if you're using Monix/Haskell style tasks (lazy, run when depended on) or JS-style promises (E Promise / C# Task / Java Future - run when instantiated, waiting is post-submission). Agreed completely though, structured concurrency is fantastic.
TL;DR - he says that "doParallel" and "doConcurrently" are separate operations with distinct semantics that designers of programs must care about and that conflating the two (especially the common "doConcurrently-and-often-but-not-always-in-parallel") is one of the most common causes of bugs in programs that need to make progress in multiple threads of execution.