I think this is a great response, especially because I agree with the first part, and the second part gave me more to think about.

> I'm personally waiting on an ETH successor with non-Turing-complete, verifiable code.

Absolutely! My premise is that with turing completeness comes more chances for shooting in the foot.

> Im not as upset about the hardfork as many people, though. Social constructs should be changable by politics, not indelible and absolute. That's not what they were selling, but all the same, what they were selling was dystopian nonsense where humans are chained to machines, not their masters. It's a feature not bug of social constructs to be changeable through politics. What matters is the political process to do so.

This is great insight. I think for me, personally, the problem I have is that it seems like there isn't much politics involved at all... a completely centralized and small group made a decision and the great majority of users followed right along (as we would expect them to).

This is not quite how it is (or was anyway) sold to people as a concept.