Maybe, but also having those hard conversations and delivering a well-scoped project on time will probably overcome any minor butt-hurt from being told "no".
Most people don't mind the being told "no", they just want to understand why and how that might affect them as part of that. For anything but very simple questions (like "do I need to change anything about the way we do CI for this" -> "Nope!") you'll want more than one word to accomplish that communication.
I think when most people reference saying "no" they are really referencing saying "no, %{backgroundOfWhy}" or similar often in a few short sentences, and that's great for everyone all around. It's just the literal "no" with no effort to engage or care about why they are asking that will leave a black mark of "Joe Schmoe is really great at delivering... when he feels like talking to you about things".
> just include in the warning that it is not maintained.
I'm convinced this isn't possible in practice. It doesn't matter how often you declare that something isn't maintained, the second it causes an issue with a [bigger|more important|business critical] team it suddenly needs become maintained again.
I think deprecation in intra-company code is a completely different beast. You either have a business case for the code or not. And if something is deprecated and a downstream project needs it, it should probably have the budget to support it (or code around the deprecation).
In many ways, the decision is easier because it should be based on a business use case or budget reason.
The business case is the easy part, the quagmire is in getting the different teams to agree who should support the business case, why it's more important than the business cases they wanted to spend cycles on instead, and how much of the pie supporting it takes on the budget side. Less so when the place is small enough everyone knows everyone's name, more so when it's large enough they really don't care what your business case is much even though it'd be 10x easier to support from their side instead of another.
Oh. But that is a solved problem. The users of the library just copy the code from before the deprecation and then stick it in their codebase not to be maintained anymore. Problem solved. /s
I don't agree. Some programming languages started supporting a deprecated/obsolete tagging mechanism that is designed to trigger warnings in downstream dependencies featuring a custom message. These are one-liners that change nothing in the code. Anyone who cares about deprecating something has the low-level mechanisms to do so.
For sure, but for this to work you need someone downstream to notice those messages and prioritize the work to migrate off the deprecated code paths. Some teams will respond, but many won't. No matter how loudly you declare that the code is deprecated, you'll still have people using it up to the point it stops working.
It's far better to plan the removal of the code (and the inevitable breaking of downstream users systems) on your own schedule than to let entropy surprise you at some random point in the future.
> For sure, but for this to work you need someone downstream to notice those messages and prioritize the work to migrate off the deprecated code paths.
Deprecation messages show up as compiler warnings. As a package maintainer, your job does not include taking over project management work in projects that depend on your package.
I don't know that I see why/how this is a problem? You would do the same with any other thing in your life?
More, in many things, we have actively decided not to do something anymore, and also highly suggest people not mess with older things that did use it. See asbestos. Removing it from a building is not cheap and can be very dangerous.
It also keeps slowing down development as getting a green global compile will make you still update "deprecated" functions that face breaking API changes.
Even the most disruptive proposals in these comments aren't banning representatives from being rich, it's just banning them from adding extreme amounts of additional wealth while in office.
> AI datacenter spending is massive, but if you add it all up, it doesn't cover half of a years worth of government spending.
I didn't check your math here, but if that's true, AI datacenter spending is a few orders of magnitude larger than I assumed. "massive" doesn't even begin to describe it
The US federal budget in 2024 had outlays of 6.8 trillion dollars [1].
nVidia's current market cap (nearly all AI investment) is currently 4.4 trillion dollars [2][3].
While that's hardly an exact or exhaustive accounting of AI spending, I believe it does demonstrate that AI investment is clearly in the same order of magnitude as government spending, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's actually surpassed government spending for a full year, let alone half of one.
Global datacenter spending across all categories (ML + everything else) is roughly 0.9 - 1.2 trillion dollars for the last three years combined, I was initially going to go for "quarter of the federal budget", but picked something I thought was more conservative to account for announced spending and 2025 etc. I pick 2022 onward for the LLM wave. In reality, solely ML driven, actual realized-to-date spending is probably about 5% of the federal budget. The big announcements will spread out over the next several years in build-out. Nonetheless, it's large enough to drive GDP growth a meaningful amount. Not large enough that redirecting it elsewhere will solve our societal problems.
If these people were truly enemy combatants, you would think we would (at the very least) round up the survivors and conduct trials in the us instead of just letting them go.
Enemy combatants to...what? When has congress declared war? Using your military to assassinate another countries civilians is a literal war crime under customary international humanitarian law.
Crimes (alleged) on the high seas have a very long history of being prosecuted under their own set of rules. Look into it, you may be surprised what is “normal”
What I believe you're referring to is piracy, not drug smuggling. The term is Hostis humani generis - or enemy of mankind.
There is a very long tradition of treating pirates as outside of all laws because pirates would murder and pillage in one jurisdiction or on the high seas and then sail away to another jurisdiction. So all nations had a duty to confront pirates. That is not to say that summary execution was considered normal - it happened, but typically pirates were captured and afforded some due process.
In the modern era this logic has been extended to terrorism and certain crimes against humanity like torture.
It has NOT been extended to encompass drug trafficking. If you're smuggling drugs from Venezuela to Trinidad, you really don't want to be detected, so you're not going to stop any random ship that you see and murder the crew and steal the cargo. The whole concept of the pirate as someone who is waging war on humanity with extreme violence and can't be effectively dealt with by the nation that is effected doesn't really apply neatly to this situation.
You could make the argument that because drugs are dangerous, and drugs can be transported anywhere, that drug traffickers are effectively enemies of humanity who are doing extreme violence in the same vein as terrorists and pirates. But that would be a novel argument, not, in any way, "normal".
> If these people were truly enemy combatants, you would think we would (at the very least) round up the survivors and conduct trials in the us instead of just letting them go.
What? The whole point of the "enemy combatant" designation is to say that they're not criminals and not PoWs either. I don't like it but it was the standard position under Bush, Obama, and Biden, there's nothing new here.
We shouldn’t need to clarify this, but Tim Allen and Roseanne Bar were not threatened by high-ranking government officials, right?
These are two completely different situations. If conservatives want to vote with their dollars and boycott Disney, that’s something I wholeheartedly support. If they want to use their power as federal officials to silence voices they disagree with, that’s unacceptable.
This depends entirely on how well they fit you. My daughter regularly does flips on the trampoline while wearing non-pro Airpods and they don't fall out
