Episode description:
An investigation into illegal gun sales at Camp Lejeune uncovers a neonazi paramilitary group plotting to cause a blackout in the Pacific Northwest, assassinate the governor of Oregon, terrorize Black Lives Matter activists, and start a race war.
Podcast description:
Weird Little Guys is a weekly show that gives you an uncomfortably close look at the worst people you’ve never heard of. Molly Conger takes a closer look at the far right extremists trying to unravel the fabric of our society. It turns out, they’re all just some weird guy.
The main class of non-turing-complete programming languages that I think of are languages that don't allow infinite loops. Consider a variation of your favorite programming language where every looping construct had to have a maximum count. With each iteration, the count decrements, and when it reaches 0, the loop terminates^[What happens when a loop terminates in this manner is irrelevant to this discussion. The program could continue, an exception could be thrown, the program could immediately terminate, or something else so long as there's no escaping the requirement that the program terminates.]. This can be extended to recursion pretty trivially. This language would not be turing complete, because turing machines allow infinite loops. But on the other hand, a whole lot of what you might want to do with a programming language could still be done with this language, and it certainly would not be something you could characterize as a markup or query language.
As to whether this violates the definition of a programming language, I'm not aware of a widely agreed upon definition of what a programming language is. And languages like Rocq, Agda, Epigram, and Charity which require that programs terminate have long been described as programming languages with no push-back that I am aware of.