"Complex" is not for laymen. There is only so much that you can do with any "appliance". Beyond that, you actually have to know what you are doing. This "problem" has nothing to do with programming.

This. Thinking about the web apps I've written, most of them required fairly deep knowledge in the area of the app -- auroras, photography, specialized group management, history, genealogy, measuring instruments, Chinese, retail procedure -- all areas an interested party could potentially bring to the table.

But the tools to instantiate, manipulate and present those ideas? Those simply don't exist in "amateur" form -- I had to create them. And in doing so, I used knowledge starting with HTML and CGI and CSS, but which extended well into Python, (replaced Perl), C, SQL, a fair bit about the underlying structure of the host OS(s), knowledge of how to structure an application in the first place, and to wrap it all together, a fairly deep knowledge of what's efficient and what isn't.

Now I will admit that I am particularly resistant to Other People's Code, partially because I am unwilling to be subject to other people's bug fix schedules (or lack thereof), and permissions (or lack thereof) and functinonal choices (or lack thereof); and partially because the more stuff I write, the more handy tools of my own I have to bring to bear on the next problem that depend on no one but myself and the host language(s) -- which frankly is quite enough dependency for me anyway. Plus it's been writing all this stuff that's made me a decent programmer in the first place. So even if there *were* a library out there to generate general purpose readout dials, I wouldn't have used it; the result would have been the same. All my own code. Not the least bit reluctant to reinvent the wheel.

Still, the idea of making all that stuff both available and trivially usable (and that's what we're talking about here, because a non-programmer will have to hit this at a trivial level) seems to me to have been tried multiple times in multiple venues, and to have failed every time. Personally, I think it's because as programmers, we underestimate the complexity because we've internalized so much; we can't see the actual level of difficulty very well, because it starts out relative to our own skills. This has resulted in quite a few attempts to "make it easy", and none of them have hit any serious stride. The best any of these can boast is a small following making very limited applications, if you really want to stretch what "application" means.

I don't think the idea is ready to fly. The only context I can visualize this actually working is where you have some *very* smart software that can take an abstract description and write code *for* you. That software would have to be (a) very damned smart and (b) conversant with an enormous range of general human knowledge. Right now, as far as I know, that's the precise description of a competent applications programmer. And nothing else.

Ideas don't arrive in convenient order. Interruptions occur. The world is not a smooth surface, it's full of bumps, pits and detours. Sometimes (as here) there are even reasons to top post. Such as, so someone will actually see it. So get over it. Notably, the AC comment you're objecting to contributed more to the conversation than yours (or mine) does. There's a lesson there.

But it is scientist approved.
Or are you going to go back on the scientific process and just join the same group as climate change deniers.

Now these guys may not be the best programmers out there. As programming is different for every type of job.

Someone who can compile a nice compiler may not be able to make an OS as well. Or an OS developer may not be able to make a clean User interface for a web site.

There are so many details out there that makes a comparison near impossible. What this list captures are the Most popular programmers. Who's popularity is often due to their personality that makes their program popular.

We as programmers tend to come up with new innovative solutions to problems all the time, and often all this work isn't noticed by anyone, because it works so well that no one ever notices.

Fine. McDonald's for you.

This

The window leads to a lot of mistakes as well, probably far more than a video feed dying.
Cases have been documented when flying over an large body of water pilots can get disinterested and confuse their up from down, and fly their plains upside down, until they crash.

In the rare case where the feed dies, there are a bunch of other instruments available for them.

To much Science Fiction and not enough Science Fact.
A common theme in Science Fiction is the idea that technology will replace humans, which is often true. However most SciFi usually takes this idea and follows the slippery slop to a far more interesting to read, but most likely not possible worst case situation.

SciFi books about say a middle grade analyst having to change careers in his mid 40's because technology had made his current job obsolete. Is rather dull. But if that system some how became the all knowing overlord, picking who lives and who lives on a global scale. Now that is interesting, and allows conflict with a rag tag team of Humans in their seemingly impossible task in out thinking the super computer.

When you read a cautionary tail, it isn't about stopping progress, but opening your mind to other options, if these options are bad, put insurances to protect the bad stuff from happening.

Where their are the rare cases where a kid who doesn't have the mental block on this is how we need to do things can come up with a much more innovative solution. However most of the time, the best they achieve is creating something that other engineers have though of before but had rejected the idea, because of the trade-offs it can bring, being too expensive, doesn't meet quality standards, parts are hard to replace, cannot purchase the right to use a patent, excessively dangerous, etc....

I had invented a lot of crazy stuff as a kid, I was lucky I never started a fire with the designs. (A lot of wire cloth hanger that are not isolated were often my primary material)

Hey stop throwing in facts, that messes up a perfectly good outrage. Every story needs to be 1 paragraph long and at least 2 sentences of editorial in it for it to be legit.

The correct question, assuming the story is factual, would be something along the lines of "What do want us to put in the lab we're going to give you for free, sonny?"

eyes open, unresponsive to stimuli (can't be woken up), no memory of entering the state

Yes, but this isn't sleep. This is more like watching Fox News.

What are you sniveling about now? no-ip.com wasn't seized. The authoritive NS records for the domain still point to Vitalwerks' servers. Ditto for the other no-ip ccTLDs - all of which you listed. Face it, your list is wrong, and RANDOMLY capitalising and bolding WORDS doesn't change that fact, or that hosts files are irrelevant to this discussion.

The claustrum has a phylogenetic background appearing predominantly in insectivores, Prosimians, and Marsupials.

Hmmm. A hint as to where to look for consciousness most similar to humans?