Following this to its logical conclusion, this means that one day the moon could be entirely controlled by corporations, but not governments.
If anyone is actually living on the Moon, if anyone calls it home, they'll form a nation, possibly working their way up from clans and tribes first. That nation might be temporarily under corporate control, but that kind of arrangement isn't really stable.
Bees make beehives, ant make anthills, humans make nations (and then usually deify them). Corporations can't command loyalty in the same way, because people don't strongly identify with them and because they're beholden to external stakeholders above their employees. Altough I suppose a corporation could morph into a state in the right circumstances.
Actually, I think it has more to do with the state telling parents what shots their kids must receive. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.
The problem is, the kids are also citizens. If the parents are causing them harm, either due to malice or idiocy, why would the parent's rights override the kids'? But of course this line of thinking is quite open to abuse as well, should the state or its agents fall short of perfection.
I guess, in the end, it comes down to this: it really sucks being small and weak.
Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line?
Isn't that what they've done? "This increases the number of times cells are able to divide, essentially making the cells many years younger." Sure, it might take a while for your body to heal the damage, and it might require further medical help in extreme cases, but the core cause has been fixed.
Seriously, how annoying will it be when they invest booster spice and all the people under 30 can live that way forever?
Or until an accident or illness kills you. Which will eventually happen, of course. But eliminating the physical effects of old age would surely make whatever time you do have more pleasant.
Of course, overcoming death in our current state could lead to a Queen of Pain scenario.
No matter if the American government has carried out this 'car plate scanning' thing for decades, this announcement by itself is a PSY-OP and this mark the beginning of the government of the United States of America launching PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE on the Citizens of the United States of America
What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.
In other words, the government of the United States of America is no longer a government of the People, by the People and from the People --- The government of the United States of America has become a government AGAINST the People
No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.
For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.
Actually essential liberty is not having your property and earnings stolen from you by any government.
As long as you don't expect said government to back your claim to said property or earnings, fair enough. And are willing to build and maintain your private financial system, of course - anti-counterfeiting efforts aren't free, after all. As well as your own road system, your own communication system, your own military defence...
No, having all your living expenses paid for by others so you can have more disposable income is not an essential liberty. Pay your taxes and pull your weight.
If its not a law its not against the law. I hate terms of propaganda like "tax loophole" are thrown about as to make someone not breaking the law a bad person.
Fair enough, as long as you're okay with the result: a legal system that grows without bound as it tries to enumerate badness.
The problem is, NG's only partially right. Yes, it's also unreasonable to expect the author to dedicate every waking moment for years - perhaps even decades - of his life to finishing the work on schedule, much less a schedule that exists only on reader's minds. But it's also unreasonable to start releasing a series, start dragging your feet halfway through, and act surprised when the readers treat that as a betrayal. It is; the "to be continued" on the first book is why publishers and readers both tolerated the plot being unfinished and helped drive sales for the next book.
The author is not the reader's bitch, but neither does he get to make a deal, pocket the payoff, fail to deliver his end of the bargain and then act like people vilifying him for that are treating him as one. They aren't, they're treating him as a fraud.
Gaiman simply wants the best of both worlds for the author: the ability to start selling a long work before it's finished, and the freedom to bail out anytime without getting any flak. That's unreasonable, and not going to happen, because at the end of the day, the readers aren't author's bitches, either.
I'm so thankful I live in states that either don't do inspections, or no sniff tests at least.
But if you did, you wouldn't have to beg for identity reinforcement on online forums. You could protest with your friends against the yoke of oppression at the stairs of the state capitol rather than hope someone provides you with an opponent here.
One can be a rebel without a cause but not without an authority to rebel against.
Life's too short not to enjoy it to the max.
There is something very sad about ending a trolling attempt on Slashdot with such a sentence, especially on Friday night.
Optimizing business processes like JIT supply chains is a branch of math called "operations research" (logistics if you are american).
Or "garbage in, garbage out" if you've seen the results of mathematically optimized processes encountering physical reality. But hey, someone earned a bonus for implementing them, and its not their fault someone got the flu, a storm delayed a ship, a roadwork delayed a truck which thus arrived just after lunch hour began, the warehouse door got stuck so they had to use another, another company was delivering goods at the same time so ours had to wait in line, the new part didn't fit, half the workforce was "optimized" away so the rest hate your guts and now have a work ethic to match, etc. etc.
This should be obvious, but for some reason, many people are always fixated on interpreting #3 (by far the most common scenario) as #2.
The "some reason" being that if someone goes to jail, the problem is solved - after all, they caught the bad guy, right? He's safely locked away or buried, unable to harm anyone again, and even more importantly, the injustice of an innocent person being victimized was just a temporary glitch that was promptly fixed - dreadful business, but now it's all behind us.
But if person A accuses person B of something horrible - such as a rape - then one of them must be a horrible person. If neither goes to jail, then justice has failed to be served. Occasional failures are inevitable with mere mortals, but no one likes - nor should like - them. The problem is, people don't always deal with such discomfort very well - there's no shortage of glitches in the current unfinished state of the world.
To fail to recognize WWII was a holy war, is to fail to see what is happening now.
To the Nazis it certainly was. And it became that way for everyone towards the end. The entire 1900s were a time of religious warfare between fanatical supporters of various nations and ideologies.
Any ancient Athenian would instantly recognize, say, the American Eagle as the local equivalent of Athena. Which is fine, people need group identities to cooperate effectively, and these group identities will inevitably end up having recognizable personalities. But we'd gain more control over the outcome if we'd acknowledge that nations, ideologies, and anything else that can command people's loyalty is functionally a god and thus follows mythological, rather than rational, patterns.
Currently people aren't really aware of these high-level structures, which is why trying to control or even predict the outcome of various situations is a bit like decompiling a highly optimized program. And often the result ends up simply repeating typical religious patterns, for example with current efforts in Europe to placate the angry god Invisible Hand with public sacrifices - or "austerity", as the clerical cast ("economists") like to call it - to get back economical prosperity. And of course, communists on the other side of the ideological divide insisted that their god should bring forth a paradise on Earth, if only doctrinal purity was maintained. Evidence mattered little, until people finally lost their faith, at which point the Soviet Union fell pretty much overnight.
A god is a superorganism typical for humanity, the equivalent of anthill or beehive, thus every war is a holy war - a clash between rival deities - no matter what its nominal cause. Every member of a particular society has its image in their mind, suggesting courses of action compatible with said society, which then serve to reinforce them in anyone witnessing these actions. All too often that image has been quite beastly, but with greater awareness of these mechanisms, one can exert conscious control over the image - take actions which project the image one wants, hopefully starting a chain reaction that perpetuates the updated image through the entire society. It's about time we take human destiny into human hands under conscious control, rather than leave it to luck and instincts that have outlived their usefulness.
I'd like to know who first got the public all excited about the terminator gene. It's obviously a self-regulating problem; if the terminator gene somehow crosses over into another population, those plants don't breed and they don't carry the gene forward.
Scenario: terminatored corn is widely succesful and replaces regular corn. Something bad happens to stop Monsanto from delivering more seends. What will the farmers plant? They can't use seeds from terminatored corn since they're infertile, and they can't plant regular corn seeds since they no longer have any. Mass starvation follows.
Planned obsolescence in vital systems is a really bad idea.
But it's all up to you guys. What I am telling you is what I, and many millions of older generation of Chinese had gone through --- we do not trust the authority, we do not trust anyone but ourselves
And neither did the people who did the killing in China. The idea, inherited from Lenin, was to have a small vanguard of professional revolutionaries guarding the masses - in your terminology, "sheeples" - under absolute authority of the Party. Mao and Stalin then took this idea to its logical conclusion.
What I'm saying is that calling people "sheeples" is inherently anti-democratic. You can't trust sheeples, after all. Also, no society can survive unless the majority of its members stay put most of the time, which seems to be the going definition of "sheeple". And so you can at most let them play at ruling themselves when nothing's at stake - but as soon as there's trouble on the horizon, it's time for the shepherds to take control. Which they did in China, and are trying to do in the US. The results speak for themselves.
It's a fine example of how cultural memes perpetuate themselves, even when it'd be better they didn't. Much as you might hate the Chinese government, you still carry its - for a lack of better word - spirit with you. And there's no easy way to get rid of it.
Nicely done. That kind of self-loathing crap is always irritating to come across.
I never once said anything about myself. You may wish to examine your biases, the errors in interpretation they cause and whether these errors make you significantly less effective at achieving whatever goals you have.
First, us humans prefer killing each other to science. This is a proven fact.
Really? How did the arrangements for that experience go? Subject gets to choose between a test tube or a bound assistant and a (hopefully fake) knife?
Second, humanity did not go from Horses to Nukes, a very very small percent of the population did it, those geniuses have everyone else standing on their coat-tails.
A small part of the population did experiments on uranium, while the rest mined that uranium, enriched it, built the roads that carried it from the mine to the lab, etc. Accusing a tailor of riding on the coattails he made is rather absurd.
The next leap will be by a very small group that is significantly more enlightened than the rest of the 99.95% of the population. If those people are benevolent, then everyone enjoys the fruits. If they are not....... Well, things can go very differently.
The invention to trigger the next leap will be by some group that is supported by others, allowing them to focus on something besides where their next meal will come from. After it has been made, it will be turned into something actually usable by other people, manufactured by yet others, distributed by yet other people along communication and transfer infrastructure built by, you guessed it, other people...
Heroic fantasies are just that: fantasies.
WE do not glorify learning, but instead glorify morons that can carry a ball, or can sing a tune. And we Vilify in society those that do love learning and are very smart.
People respect people who can provide something useful, be it entertainment, a focus for a cultural bonding event, or a cure for cancer. If you aren't respected as much as you think you deserve, it's usually because you aren't doing anything to earn it. Merely being smart and learned is no more worthy of respect than being richr; it's what you're doing with it that earns - or doesn't - the respect.
Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. And if an advanced civilization stumbled across us, they would probably wipe us out to make the rest of the universe safer. We as a species love to hate others, we love murder, war, and control. WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.
Humans, in general, love thinking they're better than someone else, since that's easier than self-improvement. Sometimes that manifests as merely dismissing the entire species as "riding on the coattails" of a special few ubermenschen, and sometimes the delusion reaches the point of wanting to get rid of some specific group of perceived parasites. Either way, it's bullshit.
Unless they intend to get forgiveness... or default. I am not sure that Greece is "too big to fail" where they can do that.
It is. EU is not a nation, it's a collection of nations, and "European identity" is weak at best. Anti-EU movements are already growing, and won't have any trouble taking power if it starts to look like EU is a threat to the nations people actually identity with.
This certainly explains the observed tendency of economies to collapse randomly no matter how they're run.
However, unlike in game economies, decisions in real economies affect people in addition to economy. Even if austerity actually was a cure to euro's problems, it cannot continue without destroying EU itself. People aren't going to tolerate endless misery just to boost some number, no matter how necessary politicians (who don't share the misery) deem it.
Either EU gets euro to work without austerity, or it has to abandon it. Demanding sacrifices from the common people who's reward is having less say in their own local affairs is quickly discrediting the entire union.
I see people who act like mindless robots when it comes to politics,
"Act like mindless robots" is a bit vague. Can you detail what it entails and how you've studied it?
You did actually study the reasoning behind political behaviour and not just conclude that because your candidate lost, people must be idiots?
fail to understand mathematics, believe in magical sky daddies for which there is no evidence,
People typically hold metaphysical positions based on personal subjective experience and channel these through whatever cultural imagery is available. Obnoxious as the result can be, the strawman of "magical sky fairy" has nothing to do with it.
and do all sorts of other tremendously illogical and irrational things despite the education we attempt to give them; that makes me conclude that most people are hopeless.
Illogical, such as jumping to conclusions the evidence does not warrant? Given the rather obviously non-sequiter nature of ("There exist education that isn't working, therefore no education can") I can only assume you're holding it for irrational reasons, such as egomania.
Trying to psychoanalyze other people over the Internet just makes you look like an idiot in my eyes. It isn't even relevant to the conversation.
...This one's so obvious I'm not even going to bother.
There were plenty of kids who knew how to write "10 PRINT FART; 20 GOTO 10" or who typed in listings from magazines, and I agree that programming at that level is probably accessible to most people - but you can't equate that level of programming with modern software development.
But you also can't equate being able to read and write these comments - or baking instructions, street signs, or whatever - with writing "War and Peace", "The Lord of the Rings" or $your_favourite_book. "Modern software development" has very little to do with being able to quickly piece together a script to, say, unzipping all the archives in a directory to subdirectories named after themselves, or parsing a file, or customizing a web page with Greasemonkey, or whatever.
Any interface that isn't Turing complete is going to lead users wasting their time doing the same mechanical thing over and over and over again. And any that is, is programming by definition.
Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that.
Programming large systems is a job description. Ability to make small scripts and macros is an utility skill. Everyone needs to know how to unclog a toilet or change a lightbulb without frying themselves, even if they aren't electricians.
This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.
As opposed to being useless and thus unemployable. Let's face it: the kids are screwed.
It will eventually get to the point where you're not actually buying the game,
Eventually? You haven't ever bought a game, merely a license to use it. Ubisoft seems hell-bent on demonstrating why, exactly speaking, this is a bad thing. I honestly can't tell if the whole company is doing some kind of performance art or executing a serious business strategy at this point.
But it's okay. We're due for another video game crash. Let bullshit burn.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone is actually living on the Moon, if anyone calls it home, they'll form a nation, possibly working their way up from clans and tribes first. That nation might be temporarily under corporate control, but that kind of arrangement isn't really stable.
Bees make beehives, ant make anthills, humans make nations (and then usually deify them). Corporations can't command loyalty in the same way, because people don't strongly identify with them and because they're beholden to external stakeholders above their employees. Altough I suppose a corporation could morph into a state in the right circumstances.
Enough people thought that they are that we actually needed to make laws against hitting your own children.
The problem is, the kids are also citizens. If the parents are causing them harm, either due to malice or idiocy, why would the parent's rights override the kids'? But of course this line of thinking is quite open to abuse as well, should the state or its agents fall short of perfection.
I guess, in the end, it comes down to this: it really sucks being small and weak.
It already does. Education is not voluntary.
Isn't that what they've done? "This increases the number of times cells are able to divide, essentially making the cells many years younger." Sure, it might take a while for your body to heal the damage, and it might require further medical help in extreme cases, but the core cause has been fixed.
Or until an accident or illness kills you. Which will eventually happen, of course. But eliminating the physical effects of old age would surely make whatever time you do have more pleasant.
Of course, overcoming death in our current state could lead to a Queen of Pain scenario.
What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.
No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.
For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.
As long as you don't expect said government to back your claim to said property or earnings, fair enough. And are willing to build and maintain your private financial system, of course - anti-counterfeiting efforts aren't free, after all. As well as your own road system, your own communication system, your own military defence...
No, having all your living expenses paid for by others so you can have more disposable income is not an essential liberty. Pay your taxes and pull your weight.
Fair enough, as long as you're okay with the result: a legal system that grows without bound as it tries to enumerate badness.
The problem is, NG's only partially right. Yes, it's also unreasonable to expect the author to dedicate every waking moment for years - perhaps even decades - of his life to finishing the work on schedule, much less a schedule that exists only on reader's minds. But it's also unreasonable to start releasing a series, start dragging your feet halfway through, and act surprised when the readers treat that as a betrayal. It is; the "to be continued" on the first book is why publishers and readers both tolerated the plot being unfinished and helped drive sales for the next book.
The author is not the reader's bitch, but neither does he get to make a deal, pocket the payoff, fail to deliver his end of the bargain and then act like people vilifying him for that are treating him as one. They aren't, they're treating him as a fraud.
Gaiman simply wants the best of both worlds for the author: the ability to start selling a long work before it's finished, and the freedom to bail out anytime without getting any flak. That's unreasonable, and not going to happen, because at the end of the day, the readers aren't author's bitches, either.
But if you did, you wouldn't have to beg for identity reinforcement on online forums. You could protest with your friends against the yoke of oppression at the stairs of the state capitol rather than hope someone provides you with an opponent here.
One can be a rebel without a cause but not without an authority to rebel against.
There is something very sad about ending a trolling attempt on Slashdot with such a sentence, especially on Friday night.
Or "garbage in, garbage out" if you've seen the results of mathematically optimized processes encountering physical reality. But hey, someone earned a bonus for implementing them, and its not their fault someone got the flu, a storm delayed a ship, a roadwork delayed a truck which thus arrived just after lunch hour began, the warehouse door got stuck so they had to use another, another company was delivering goods at the same time so ours had to wait in line, the new part didn't fit, half the workforce was "optimized" away so the rest hate your guts and now have a work ethic to match, etc. etc.
The "some reason" being that if someone goes to jail, the problem is solved - after all, they caught the bad guy, right? He's safely locked away or buried, unable to harm anyone again, and even more importantly, the injustice of an innocent person being victimized was just a temporary glitch that was promptly fixed - dreadful business, but now it's all behind us.
But if person A accuses person B of something horrible - such as a rape - then one of them must be a horrible person. If neither goes to jail, then justice has failed to be served. Occasional failures are inevitable with mere mortals, but no one likes - nor should like - them. The problem is, people don't always deal with such discomfort very well - there's no shortage of glitches in the current unfinished state of the world.
God Emperor of Mankind.
Whether it was intentional or not, WH40K is pretty much a parody of militant Evangelical theology.
To the Nazis it certainly was. And it became that way for everyone towards the end. The entire 1900s were a time of religious warfare between fanatical supporters of various nations and ideologies.
Any ancient Athenian would instantly recognize, say, the American Eagle as the local equivalent of Athena. Which is fine, people need group identities to cooperate effectively, and these group identities will inevitably end up having recognizable personalities. But we'd gain more control over the outcome if we'd acknowledge that nations, ideologies, and anything else that can command people's loyalty is functionally a god and thus follows mythological, rather than rational, patterns.
Currently people aren't really aware of these high-level structures, which is why trying to control or even predict the outcome of various situations is a bit like decompiling a highly optimized program. And often the result ends up simply repeating typical religious patterns, for example with current efforts in Europe to placate the angry god Invisible Hand with public sacrifices - or "austerity", as the clerical cast ("economists") like to call it - to get back economical prosperity. And of course, communists on the other side of the ideological divide insisted that their god should bring forth a paradise on Earth, if only doctrinal purity was maintained. Evidence mattered little, until people finally lost their faith, at which point the Soviet Union fell pretty much overnight.
A god is a superorganism typical for humanity, the equivalent of anthill or beehive, thus every war is a holy war - a clash between rival deities - no matter what its nominal cause. Every member of a particular society has its image in their mind, suggesting courses of action compatible with said society, which then serve to reinforce them in anyone witnessing these actions. All too often that image has been quite beastly, but with greater awareness of these mechanisms, one can exert conscious control over the image - take actions which project the image one wants, hopefully starting a chain reaction that perpetuates the updated image through the entire society. It's about time we take human destiny into human hands under conscious control, rather than leave it to luck and instincts that have outlived their usefulness.
So where will they get the seed for those?
Scenario: terminatored corn is widely succesful and replaces regular corn. Something bad happens to stop Monsanto from delivering more seends. What will the farmers plant? They can't use seeds from terminatored corn since they're infertile, and they can't plant regular corn seeds since they no longer have any. Mass starvation follows.
Planned obsolescence in vital systems is a really bad idea.
If you bomb an ATM, you go to prison, not Gitmo. Gitmo is for getting around that pesky Sixth Amendment thing, not for actual criminals.
And neither did the people who did the killing in China. The idea, inherited from Lenin, was to have a small vanguard of professional revolutionaries guarding the masses - in your terminology, "sheeples" - under absolute authority of the Party. Mao and Stalin then took this idea to its logical conclusion.
What I'm saying is that calling people "sheeples" is inherently anti-democratic. You can't trust sheeples, after all. Also, no society can survive unless the majority of its members stay put most of the time, which seems to be the going definition of "sheeple". And so you can at most let them play at ruling themselves when nothing's at stake - but as soon as there's trouble on the horizon, it's time for the shepherds to take control. Which they did in China, and are trying to do in the US. The results speak for themselves.
It's a fine example of how cultural memes perpetuate themselves, even when it'd be better they didn't. Much as you might hate the Chinese government, you still carry its - for a lack of better word - spirit with you. And there's no easy way to get rid of it.
I never once said anything about myself. You may wish to examine your biases, the errors in interpretation they cause and whether these errors make you significantly less effective at achieving whatever goals you have.
Really? How did the arrangements for that experience go? Subject gets to choose between a test tube or a bound assistant and a (hopefully fake) knife?
A small part of the population did experiments on uranium, while the rest mined that uranium, enriched it, built the roads that carried it from the mine to the lab, etc. Accusing a tailor of riding on the coattails he made is rather absurd.
The invention to trigger the next leap will be by some group that is supported by others, allowing them to focus on something besides where their next meal will come from. After it has been made, it will be turned into something actually usable by other people, manufactured by yet others, distributed by yet other people along communication and transfer infrastructure built by, you guessed it, other people...
Heroic fantasies are just that: fantasies.
People respect people who can provide something useful, be it entertainment, a focus for a cultural bonding event, or a cure for cancer. If you aren't respected as much as you think you deserve, it's usually because you aren't doing anything to earn it. Merely being smart and learned is no more worthy of respect than being richr; it's what you're doing with it that earns - or doesn't - the respect.
Humans, in general, love thinking they're better than someone else, since that's easier than self-improvement. Sometimes that manifests as merely dismissing the entire species as "riding on the coattails" of a special few ubermenschen, and sometimes the delusion reaches the point of wanting to get rid of some specific group of perceived parasites. Either way, it's bullshit.
It is. EU is not a nation, it's a collection of nations, and "European identity" is weak at best. Anti-EU movements are already growing, and won't have any trouble taking power if it starts to look like EU is a threat to the nations people actually identity with.
This certainly explains the observed tendency of economies to collapse randomly no matter how they're run.
However, unlike in game economies, decisions in real economies affect people in addition to economy. Even if austerity actually was a cure to euro's problems, it cannot continue without destroying EU itself. People aren't going to tolerate endless misery just to boost some number, no matter how necessary politicians (who don't share the misery) deem it.
Either EU gets euro to work without austerity, or it has to abandon it. Demanding sacrifices from the common people who's reward is having less say in their own local affairs is quickly discrediting the entire union.
"Act like mindless robots" is a bit vague. Can you detail what it entails and how you've studied it?
You did actually study the reasoning behind political behaviour and not just conclude that because your candidate lost, people must be idiots?
People typically hold metaphysical positions based on personal subjective experience and channel these through whatever cultural imagery is available. Obnoxious as the result can be, the strawman of "magical sky fairy" has nothing to do with it.
Illogical, such as jumping to conclusions the evidence does not warrant? Given the rather obviously non-sequiter nature of ("There exist education that isn't working, therefore no education can") I can only assume you're holding it for irrational reasons, such as egomania.
...This one's so obvious I'm not even going to bother.
But you also can't equate being able to read and write these comments - or baking instructions, street signs, or whatever - with writing "War and Peace", "The Lord of the Rings" or $your_favourite_book. "Modern software development" has very little to do with being able to quickly piece together a script to, say, unzipping all the archives in a directory to subdirectories named after themselves, or parsing a file, or customizing a web page with Greasemonkey, or whatever.
Any interface that isn't Turing complete is going to lead users wasting their time doing the same mechanical thing over and over and over again. And any that is, is programming by definition.
Programming large systems is a job description. Ability to make small scripts and macros is an utility skill. Everyone needs to know how to unclog a toilet or change a lightbulb without frying themselves, even if they aren't electricians.
As opposed to being useless and thus unemployable. Let's face it: the kids are screwed.
Eventually? You haven't ever bought a game, merely a license to use it. Ubisoft seems hell-bent on demonstrating why, exactly speaking, this is a bad thing. I honestly can't tell if the whole company is doing some kind of performance art or executing a serious business strategy at this point.
But it's okay. We're due for another video game crash. Let bullshit burn.