It does limit choice, but so long as you aren’t retaining the generation list somewhere an attacker can find it, how are they to know your list? As long as your list is incorporating less common words, your attacker can’t even simplify the problem by focusing on the most common words. Just one rare word can expand the list they need to use by tens of thousands of words.

As you’ve phrased it, this seems to me to be a question of how to balance the rights of the developer versus those of the end user. The developer wants to monopolize commercial usage while the end user wants full control and authority on their machine.

Some would argue that the developer’s goals are unethical, but I think it’s an unfortunate consequence of a societal system that would see them starve on the streets if they didn’t earn with their work. In an ideal world, end users would prevail unquestionably, but so long as developers must operate under capitalism where ownership is critical, concessions will have to be made.

In the case of libraries, the users of the libraries are not the end users of the program. The users of the library are the developers.

Except the end user does inevitably become the user of the library when they use the software the developer made with it. They run that library’s code on their machine.

It claims that it’s freedom for the users, but that’s not true.

In light of the above, this is incorrect. By using GPL, you preserve the end user’s freedom to understand, control, and modify the operation of their hardware. In no way does the end user suffer or lose any freedoms.

When I see a GPL license I don’t see freedom. I only see forced openness, which makes me immediately avoid that library, since I can’t statically link to it.

One of the arguments in favor of GPL and other “forced openness” licenses is that users should have the right to understand what their own device is doing. You paid for your computer. You own it. You should dictate how it operates. You should at least have the option of understanding what is being done with your machine and modifying it to fit your needs. Closed source software may provide utility, but it doesn’t really further collective knowledge since you’re explicitly refusing to publicly release the code, and it provides obscurity for developers to hide undesirable functionality like data collection or more directly malicious activity.

I’m not personally sure how I feel about that argument myself, but I can at least readily acknowledge it as a valid one whether I agree with the decision to force openness or not.

You may enjoy Zero-K more than most other RTS, at least. It’s in the Total Annihilation style like Supreme Commander or Beyond All Reason. One of the ways it sets itself apart is with a diverse array of commands you can issue to your units so they can micro themselves. I haven’t played much of it, so I can’t give a ton of examples, but it has commands to do stuff attack while maintaining distance, compared to how StarCraft 2 forced you to learn to stutter step your Marines, manually alternating between moving and shooting.

It’s also free and open source, based on the Spring engine, and available on Steam. It felt like it played well and was filled out well in terms of mechanics and units when I gave it a try a year or so ago, but I just haven’t been playing any RTS lately.

I’m still disappointed we never got the Dr. Horrible sequel…

You can get yay for an AUR package manager, but it’s generally not recommended because it means blindly trusting the build scripts for community packages that have no real oversight. You’re typically advised to check the build script for every AUR package you install.

Maybe not legally punished, but this very article we’re discussing is about how insurance companies are, in fact, punishing you financially for it. As for the false accusation, sure, but how likely is anyone to even figure it out? You’re not being dragged into court, and people don’t even know this is happening yet. It’s only illegal if you get caught. I don’t expect them to report it to anyone. I just expect data collectors to sell data and other businesses to buy it for the express purposes of financially screwing you. You may stay out of court, but that extra 21% charge is gonna cost you a couple hundred per year at least.

That assumes the outdated map software manages to somehow make an accurate report. Most likely, if it makes one, it’ll be “Going X over a Y MPH area” even though Y is wrong, or it’ll be just “speeding by X MPH for Y seconds/minutes”. Either way, nobody is likely to verify and correct the data, so you could be punished for perfectly safe and legal driving.