> I would not recommend it to anyone for any purpose

The most likely purpose for this kind of encoding is to discourage users (as in other developers) from trying to derive meaning from the values that is not actually there.

This happens all the time: Another developer using your API observes sequential IDs, for example, and soon they start building their software on top of that observation, assuming it to be an intended property of the system. It even works perfectly for a while... until you want to change your implementation and break those assumptions. Which you now can't do, because breaking users is the cardinal sin of software development, leaving you forever beholden to implementation details that were never intended to leak out. That's not a good place to be. Making the IDs "opaque" indicates to the user that there is no other meaning.

That they are guessable doesn't matter. I dare say it may even be beneficial to be able to easily reverse the strings back into their original form to aid with things like debugging. Software development is primarily about communicating with other people, and using IDs that, at first glance, look random communicates a lot — even if they aren't actually random.

There may be a time and place for actually secure IDs, but more often than not you don't really need them. What you do regularly need, though, especially in large organizations, is a way to effectively work with others who don't read the documentation.

> It’s just bad

This is the first I've heard of Hashids, so I'll take your word for it, but I'm not sure you actually articulated why. I'll grant you that excluding profanity is a stupid need, but it is understandable why one might have to accept that as a necessary feature even if ultimately ridiculous.