There a definite gap between the experiences, but use cases are usually a bit different, too. Mobile devices are mostly used to check something up quickly on-the-fly as on PC you also do more planning ahead. So a scaled down experience is not necessarily a bad thing on mobile as that eases the pain of having a small screen, slow text input and possibly moving around in a noisy environment. Scaling down the features also forces the development team to focus on the essentials, which is not a bad thing even on PC.
Then again, it would be nice to get Slashdot css working on small screens, too.
I bleme the belief that the goal of an UI is to lower the required understanding (and thus salary) of the operators. How the UI worked is irrelevant. Operators who understood what they were doing would have checked what needed to be checked, and taken the precautions the situation warranted, no matter what kind of warnings were lost because of a bad UI.
In an enviroment like this you really need both, trained personnel and a decent UI. The goal of the UI should not be to reduce understanding and cost, but to support the people making the decisions with the best information available. Even the most talented professionals can only make educated guesses if they have no situational information whatsoever and the only feedback is boom/no boom.
The problem is that Nature is a whole lot better of churning out interface-proof idiots than programmers are at making idiot-proof interfaces.
And that is exactly why you don't use programmers to design a UI.
The kids who gather there are an effing nuisance, they insist on playing football right in front of the cars trying to use the car park, they harrass people and treat adults there like crap...
So how about building them a proper place to play football. As you said, deal with the root of the problem.
Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.