Maybe instead of hiding behind insults you can explain how a simulation qualifies as "beating the world's worst traffic"?
See, history keeps showing over and over and over and over (etc) that men are unable to make accurate simulations of complex systems. Case in point: LTCM, which had two Nobel prize winners and the former head of the biggest bond trading desk on its board. They went bust. That was in 1998, and obviously people don't learn because the same kind of shit happened 10 years later. And seeing how the idiots at the Fed are driving the economy into the ground, soon we'll probably have another documented example.
The point here is that those traffic guys didn't beat nothing. All they did was a thought experiment that, if implemented (which will never happen) will at best cause more traffic problems. Ergo: useless.
I have to agree here. At the very least the simulation is somewhat flawed in that it seems that their algorithms were built upon having real-time and complete traffic data. In such a situation their algorithms can improve the situation. So it would work for areas that have a lot of coverage through traffic cameras, automated reporting etc. But other areas with less information will still end up being a nightmare.
In areas with good traffic information, it would improve on Waze and GPS by only routing a certain percentage of drivers through side streets, enough to help alleviate the congestion, rather than everyone. This would also keep the side route usage relatively lower during congestion scenarios.