In some instances of private/public key systems, this is done. It’s mainly for the purpose of ensuring the recipient knows who the sender was and also ensuring the sender knows who the recipient is.

Quick primer: If you encrypt with your private key, everyone knows it was sent by you. If someone encrypts with your public key, they know you will receive it. Use your private key and someone’s public key together and you know only that person got it.

In practice, lately another step is added to negotiate a third temporary/session key. This ensures keys aren’t used forever, and if compromised a new one can be generated. This is more secure than encrypting twice, because you never know what data is sensitive and picking the wrong one requires the attacker to start from scratch.

No judgements, hope you and your doggo is happy.

No. The fallacy is believing that the stories of military service will straighten people right up is flawed. Certainly it has the potential to do that, but you ignore:

1. Most people already know empathy before joining.
2. The worst of the worst get kicked out.
3. Lessons will stick after the fact.

What you get is survivorship bias. Of course the people who aren’t getting entry level discharged or dishonorable discharge have the qualities needed to have or learn empathy, following orders and working as a team.

Fact is, military isn’t a perfect fit for everyone, and forcing people to do so runs against cohesiveness, morale and effectiveness. It should only be used in the most dire of situations.

Mirroring this onto service industries wouldn’t be effective at all for the people that need it. I would argue it would make it worse, as these people would see it more of a punishment than a lesson, and only serve to drag down and consume resources for the vast majority of individuals who don’t need the lessons.