I actually think I would prefer the more boring "it composes well known widgets" because then there's a chance I could just use this to generate a presentation layer and integrate it instead of new blobs of code I need to essentially reverse engineer or remake.

Why would we want to move away from hard fought UX design lessons? Dynamic and fluid UX is infuriating.

Is that globe made from whole cloth or is there a bespoke "telecom globe" widget that it dropped in? Could I ask for mock up of molecules with the same fidelity of knobs, down to nucleus size and such?

This is for non-designers to crank out slop with less effort. They can still be swayed by all the shiny knobs to feel in control.

I don't think we need to have real human risk to get results from the experiment.

That said, the implementations start to gain their own weight as user expectation grows to meet the implementation. I suppose the noun thinking is not entirely frivolous for an established app with expected core workflows and design language.

Games have the trouble that users have very different appetites for the gameplay. Some want short games, some want 1000s of hours for their $50. Devs do their best to provide a reasonable amount of content. This means that the reality is that most will not 100% complete your game and so you need to tune accordingly.

Its not fundamentally wrong to play a game until you're satisfied. Ideally the game can be structured in a way that the core story thread can be finished by then but sometimes that just doesn't work out.

Worrying about HA when you don't have customers that need it is one thing, but I wouldn't want to be in a place where I have to put a banner on the website asking users to please make a new account because we had an oopsie.