OOP has lots of flaws and is not a good choice in every context, but I still don't understand the universal hatred it seems to get now.

I think OOP techniques made most sense in contexts where data was in memory of long-running processes - think of early versions of MS Office or such.

We've since changed into a computing environment in which everything that is not written to disk should be assumed emepheral: UIs are web-based and may jump not just between threads or processes but between entire machines between two user actions. Processes should be assumed to be killed and restarted at any time, etc etc.

This means it makes a lot less sense today to keep complicated object graphs in memory - the real object graph has to be represented in persistent storage and the logic inside a process works more like a mathematical function, translating back and forth between the front-end representation (HTML, JSON, etc) and the storage representation (flat files, databases, etc). The "business logic" is just a sub-clause in that function.

For that kind of environment, it's obvious why functional or C-style imperative programming would be a better fit. It makes no sense to instantiate a complicated object graph from your input, traverse it once, then destroy it again - and all that again and again for every single user interaction.

But that doesn't mean that the paradigm suddenly has always been bad. It's just that the environment changed.

Also, there may be other contexts in which it still makes sense, such high-level scripting or game programming.

I'm a bit confused. What does any of this have to do with the central thesis of the talk? ("Compile time hierarchies of encapsulation that match the domain model were a mistake")

I understand that OOP is a somewhat diluted term nowdays, meaning different things to different people and in different contexts/communities, but the author spent more than enough time clarifying in excruciating detail what he was talking about.

Did you spend even 3 Minutes trying to understand what the talk was about?