You want us to agree that "Good UX _could_ be about making things worse"?

I can agree that many things actually do get worse, but I'm arguing against the implicit connection "this thing has some power and it is complex. The only way to make it nicer to use - easier, simpler, more approachable, less mental effort - involves removing or restricting the power, always and necessarily".

Take a piece of metal, flatten and grind the end, and use it as a flathead screwdriver and a small knife. Now you say "that's my powerful and useful multitool, don't you dare dumb it down for idiots or you'll remove my power!". It makes a poor knife because the blade has to be small enough to fit in a screwhead and keeps being blunted by using it as a screwdriver, and it makes a poor screwdriver because the blade is thin holding a knife edge which makes it weak and brittle, and it's a poor tool because you're trying to grip a small slippery piece of metal. Put a rubberised large grippy handle on it, it's improved - easier to hold, less likely for your grip to slip and end up hurting yourself or damaging what you are working on, and looks more visibly like a tool to someone coming in afresh if they're looking for a screwdriver - and the same power. Split it into a knife and a screwdriver, each can be better at their task - stronger screwdriver blade, bigger sharper knife blade, custom shaped handles for turning vs slicing - that's easier to use, easier to learn, and overall more powerful.

Yes someone could round off the end for 'safety for normal people' and that would remove the power, but we can't agree that's ever "good design". Particularly I won't agree "consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing" --> "any change which improves ease of use or convenience or comfort necessarily rounds off the power" (not necessarily true) or "only idiots want or need tools to be easier to use" (not true).