We can hold both accountable actually, its a workaround of our fourth amendment rights and also it should be illegal to do this for the companies involved.
You do not define wokeness except as an opposition to... nations? You are deep in the propaganda hole and you should attempt to claw yourself out a bit before trying to convince others of your irrationality.
I didn't say anything about their development abilities, what I am pointing to is their professional responsibility. If a doctor is asked by a client to cut off their arm and they say no, and the client fires them, did the doctor err? (No) This doesn't comment on their ability to do surgery.
From the perspective of the devs, they have a responsibility for saying something literally wont fly anywhere, ever, saying the business is responsible for every bad decision is a complete abrogation of your responsibilities.
Anyone whose looking at this administration as anything but corrupt thieves that need to be immediately jailed is a patsy, a fool, or a thief themselves.
More useful idiots are born every day, most of them never are educated and do not see their past blunders as anything wrong happening, they are completely blind to the real implication of their actions.
You need to care about your Recovery Time (how long does it take to get back up again?) and your Recovery Point(how long since your backup was taken?) and it gets Much Worse when you start distributing state around your various cloud systems - oh did that queue already get that message? how do we re-send that? etc
And the human downstream of this random reorganization of things at will, how do they manage it?
If its AI agents all the way down its commoditization all the way down, if humans have to deal with it there's some sort of cost for change even if its 0 for code.
AI often simply does not offer the best options, does not think strategically, and if you constrained to its choices you will often make silly mistakes.
This is why all the arguments about context windows and RAG exist, because at the end of the day even if you asked the question of a human with all the context there's such a thing as opinions, stated vs unstated goals, requirements vs non functional requirements, etc which will give you wildly different answers.
Most of the time people don't even know the questions they want to ask.
Anyone who doubts the requirement for e2e messaging should not be considered a skeptic, they are fully buying into whatever narrative LEO would like you to believe.
Most of the time just re-casting what you want in a horizontally shardable way is the "right" way to do it with any rdbms (if you scale) but at this point you can get boxes on AWS with 32TiB of ram, and most organizations don't have that much total data across their entire suite of stuff (many do, most don't.)
I have no dog in this fight, but simply claiming a count of tests get you anything is like saying your code coverage is 100% - it sounds really good until you think about what 5000 unreviewed tests actually... do.
I like how you use the phrase social responsibilities to mean doing whatever the DoD wants which includes spying on the American people and operating autonomous drones to kill people. It's like saying they have social responsibilities to enable murder for people who have been shown to be unthinking murderers justifying the most pointless murders because they think it makes "their side" winners.
No organization I have seen prioritizes a DBA's requirements, concerns, or approach. They certainly don't pay them enough to deal with that bullshit, so I was out.