You analogy doesn't not hold, and in manyways point at the root of the issue. The point was to show that harsher punishment did not seems to result in meaningful effect on crime stats. It's fine to want harsher sentencing for some kind of emotional fuffilement, let's just not pretend that is helping in any otherways.

punishment is a prerequisit to rehabilitation

How does that help, if after incarceration that person become a much hardened criminal both because of the lack meaning pathway to integration, and you know spending years locked up with the worst of society.

> but we don't really have a good understanding of what specific people can and cannot be rehabilitated, or how to go about actually effectively doing the rehabilitation.

Then let's work on that.

Weakness on crime is not a left vs right thing.It's mostly about which kind of crime each side is soft on.

Why stop at criminal, this also true for non-criminal; Let's just jail everyone, then we will all be safer.

Looking at the past for wisdom on how to treat young adult/people is very dangerous...

> People who start engaging in criminal conduct at an earlier age more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults

this is not quite what the citation means. I am also very curious on how these study correct for cofactors .People who start a life of crime early are probably not comming from the best conditions in term of life circonstances. Which in it self is also a strong predictor.

> A more rational and less emotional sentencing system would be harsher on teenage offenders while reducing sentences overall.

No, that would be the fear based emotional response. The ration response would be to simply measure whether or not harsher sentencing have a better outcome. Instead of prehemtively jailing people based on dubious stats.

A lot of software engineer are seeing this as compiler engineer only caring about performance as opposed to other aspect such as debuggability, safety, compile time and productivity etc... I think that's where the "sabotage" comes from. Basically the focus on performance at the detriment of other things.

My 2 cents : The core problem is programmers expecting invariant and properties not defined in the languange standard. The compiler only garanty things as defined in the standard, expecting anything else is problematic.

Every team and sub culture will have an "energy" and different attitude etc... sure

But this is much more than racy poster on the walls... This behavior was never acceptable. I find it fascinating that we have to rediscover and relearn every generation why professional etiquette is so important. And what happens when. We blur the line between professional life and "familial" attitudes

Just painting the situation as well google have influence because they work the hardest is just bizare. Having been in some standard / comity meetings. Everyone in those room work very hard... but someone hard work is not enough

No reasonable amount of engineering resources would have made a dent in the problem. What OP is calling "weaponization of complexity" is just the asymmetry of effort required between new comers and entrenched players.

You would have to be naive to think that google would just open their arms and kumbaya with microsoft to do the "hard work"

We have seen this played out in any industry in history. Sometime hard work is not enough and it's easy to abuse dominant position to grid lock a market.

The rest of your post frankly sounds like someone who is drunk on the usual company cooliad.

> The end goal is to help user

No. The end goal is to make money. Sometime it requires helping user, other time a bunch of anti competitive ( forcing android oem to prevent meaningful forks)and anti consumer (like playing hard ball with ad blockers) BS.

>The world has never been built by those throwing rocks from the sidelines, no matter how much they want it to be, and no matter how much they try to paint the hard problem-solving work of others as "weaponization of complexity

So much wrong with this. And is just a strawman. OP is not saying that it's not hard problem solving. The point is the solution achieved is self serving and sucks for the rest of us.

> In the end, the world is 99% built by those who show up and do it. That's how this "weaponization of complexity" happened - people showed up and tried to solve problems. The world evolved. They tried to keep moving forward as that happened.

Yeah no. History disagree with you