Possibly. But some people really need it spelled out.

No violence

No stealing

No billionaires

they could steal your personal data without you knowing

Is that supposed to be more intimidating than corporations stealing my personal data with or without me knowing?

There are four lights!

We don’t have Wal-Mart stores. They famously couldn’t cope with our labor laws, clashed with the unions and couldn’t compete with local retailers.

Which means tips up to minimum wage are just extra money in the bosses’ pocket.

“Last Christmas”

If you are selling three sizes of something, the sizes are called “small”, “medium” and “large”.

hard to comply with properly

Not at all. Don’t collect personal data that’s not technically necessary for the service to work. Tell users what data is collected and for what purposes. Done.

I wouldn’t classify “teacher” as a “position of power” in the sense that people who are mostly interested in holding power over others want the position for that reason.

There’s a huge difference between “being interested in power” and “being interested in improving things for yourself and other people”. The one is selfish in nature, the other isn’t.

There is also a huge difference between wanting a position and being good at it.

Positions of power are filled by people who are not interested in holding power.

There are differences of course. Still, Steam’s policy, which is often internationally praised as consumer friendly, is very restrictive from a European perspective.

I can get faulty physical goods fixed/refunded by the store up to 2 years after purchase (EU). It’s the store’s problem to get a refund from the manufacturer. The same should be true in case of Valve and a publisher.

Crunchy peanut butter is superior peanut butter.

Whatever brother printer is on sale

Even in your example above, with only two letters, no numbers / special characters allowed, requiring a capital letter decreases the possibilities back to the original 676 possible passwords - not less.

No it doesn’t. It reduces the possibilities to less than the 52x52 possibilities that would exist if you allowed all possible combinations of upper and lower case letters.

You are confused because you only see the two options of enforcing or not allowing certain characters. All characters need to be allowed but none should be enforced. That maximizes the number of possible combinations.

that passwords should all require certain complexity, but without broadcasting the password requirements publicly?

No, because that’s still the same. An attacker can find out the rules by creating accounts and testing.

By adding uppercase letters (for a total of 52 characters to choose from), you get 52 * 52 = 2704 possible passwords.

You don’t add them, you enforce at least one. That eliminates all combinations without upper case letters.

So, without this rule you would indeed have the 52x52 possible passwords, but with it you have (52x52)-(26x26) possible passwords (the second bracket is all combinations of 2 lowercase letters), which is obviously less.

The only way you would decrease the number of possible passwords is if you specified that the character in a particular spot had to be uppercase

Wrong. In your example, for any given try, if you have put a lowercase letter in spot 1, you don’t need to try any lowercase in spot 2.

Any information you give the attacker eliminates possible combinations.

Which is funny because those strict rules reduce the number of combinations an attacker has to guess from, thereby reducing security.

Wear hearing protection.

If my workplace is in any way representative, it’s because decisions are made by close to retirement out of touch old geezers who want to virtue signal very hard that they are not out of touch old geezers. So they push the “new thing” for lack of any actually innovative ideas of their own. Then, when the younger team members who do have some rough knowledge of the “new thing” try to explain why it might be a bad idea, they call them afraid of progress and double down on the “new thing” even harder.