Specifically, that they had a backdoor for Dual EC DRBG[1], and pushed for a shorter key lenghth for DES, to intentionally weaken it.

It is, obviously, controversial. But I think there is certainly enough there that I wouldn't be confident that the NSA wouldn't recommend something they knew to be weak in some way, even to other government organizations.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG

I should have the option to continue using the old terms. If they want to be able to change the terms after I initially agree to them, then the initial terms need to explicitly state how long the terms are good for, and they can't be changed before that. No "we can change the terms at any time". And yes, to accept the new terms, they should require that I explicitly acknowledge the changes, not just assume that I read an email lost in all the marketing spam they send me.

> Is there a Terms of Service change you find particularly offensive that might better explain your concerns here?

Changes in terms that I've found offensive include:

- Requiring that I don't participate in any class-action lawsuits or arbitration

- Using my data to train AI

- Limiting the devices I can use the service on

- Allowing them to share my data with third parties

- etc.

Admittedly, I haven't always opted out. But largely because I don't have much of a choice, in many cases there either isn't a realistic alternative to switch to, or all the alternatives have similar terms, which is it's own problem.

As for what changes I would like to see:

- There should be well-defined limits on what can be put in a ToS. Ex. you can't prohibit participating in class-action lawsuits. There should be a process for appealing arbitration to an actual court. etc.

- For paid subscriptions/license any ToS apply for the duration of the subscription/license. They cannot force you to change the terms until your current subscription expires. For on-demand or free services, they must guarantee the terms won't change for some period of time.

- They must provide easily understandable terms or at least easily understandable (and accurate) descriptions of the terms, that don't leave out subtle loopholes for the company.

- If the terms do change, they notify you with enough notice that you have time to migrate off of the platform before the new terms take affect.

- The new terms can't be retroactively applied to data I gave them before the change in terms, unless I specifically opt in.

> Perhaps not even for themselves or their country, but just to witness the enemy collapse when it all ends

To me this sounds like a desire for retribution, not just an end to hostilities. And that is what I am replying to.

I have no reason to believe that is an attitude commonly held by Ukrainians. And it seems like that post wasn't even written by a Ukranian.

Yes, you can pass around an object of procedures, but that is awkward, doesn't have any support from the language or stdlib, and from what I can tell isn't a normal thing that is done.

You said it.

And it is also significantly more difficult to retrifit that design onto a running system than to design it like that from the beginning.

I think removing the free tier altogether would be a bad move, especially given that some important open source projects rely on it. But they could possibly lower some of the limits, especially for new accounts, with a way for open source projects to apply for more, and maybe have an automatic scale up for projects that are more popular, by some metric. And maybe limit the free tier to public repos, and maybe even only repos that use an OSI approved license or something.