Not every social interaction needs to be a debate with a winner and a loser, my man

In case you forgot, we’re mammals too. The only freedom you’re rushing towards is the freedom of death, but at least we get big vroom vroom sound make happy on the way

Probably depends on how comfortable you are at reading assembly instructions for your specific CPU, but I think generally the contextless source code is probably preferable. Either way you’ve got a headache of an investigation in front of you though.

here’s an example of what it might look like with either option

It depends on the specifics of how the language is compiled. I’ll use C# as an example since that’s what I’m currently working with, but the process is different between all of them.

C#, when compiled, actually gets compressed down to what is known as an intermediate language (MSIL for C# specifically). This intermediate file is basically a set of genericized instructions that are not linked to any specific CPU. This is useful because different CPUs require different instructions.

Then, when the program is run, a second compiler known as the JIT (just-in-time) compiler takes the intermediate commands and translates them into something directly relevant to the CPU being used.

When we decompile a C# dll, we’re really converting from the intermediate language (generic CPU-agnostic instructions) and translating it back into source code.

To your second point, you are correct that the decompiled version will be more efficient from a processing perspective, but that efficiency comes at the direct cost of being able to easily understand what is happening at a human level. :)

The long answer involves a lot of technical jargon, but the short answer is that the compilation process turns high level source code into something that the machine can read, and that process usually drops a lot of unneeded data and does some low-level optimization to make things more efficient during actual processing.

One can use a decompiler to take that machine code and attempt to turn it back into something human readable, but will usually be missing data on variable names, function calls, comments, etc. and include compiler-added optimizations which makes it nearly impossible to reconstruct the original code

It’s sort of the code equivalent of putting a sentence into Google translate and then immediately translating it back to the original. You often end up with differences in word choice that give you a good general idea of intent, but it’s impossible to know exactly which words were in the original sentence.

I completely agree with that message, but until we get to that point there is a clear utility for EVs.

Shifting urban development to be less car-centric overall will take decades of effort, if not generations, and we can’t expect people to quit their commuter job, sell their car, and find an overlap of employment and public transport that works for the planet when there’s no social or infrastructural support for it.

In the meantime, to me at least, it makes sense to transition to EVs instead of ICE while that infrastructure is developed. It seems to me that perfect (a public transportation focused society) is becoming the enemy of good (reduced emissions for the sea of single person vehicles we currently have), or at least that is frequently my perception when every thread talking about EVs has people in the comments mentioning manufacturing costs as a hurdle, when the only plausible alternative is ICE vehicles with more environmental impact

Asking purely from a point of ignorance - is that not the same for ICE cars? Sourcing of battery components is a clear difference, but ICE cars also require materials to be sourced, manufactured, transported, usage input costs, drive on the same infrastructure, and also require disposal after they’re no longer operable.

Are these metrics truly that different between EV and ICE cars? If not, then all we’re really saying is that “making cars is not good for the environment” which, while accurate, seems like an insane point to use against EVs when comparing them to ICE

Say what you will about the AIs, I normally find it exceedingly difficult to get the GM customer support team to provide me with python script assistance so this is an overall improvement imo

Did you read the article? Because nowhere in the article does the phrase “due to water vapo(u)r” exist. In fact, they explicitly talk about why water vapor is prevalent and related to ice, and why subsurface ice scanning is so important (and is the only text I could find referencing vapor at all):

The need to look for subsurface ice arises because liquid water isn’t stable on the Martian surface: The atmosphere is so thin that water immediately vaporizes. There’s plenty of ice at the Martian poles – mostly made of water, although carbon dioxide, or dry ice, can be found as well – but those regions are too cold for astronauts (or robots) to survive for long.

They also talk about how NASA is not only aware of this but helping to fund the scanning technology that’s being used to detect the subsurface ice. It’s literally all in the article

He can say whatever he wants as an individual, but Apple is absolutely preventing him from speaking on their services because he’s saying things they don’t agree with. Don’t be pedantic

Sure, but in Dark Souls there’s still significantly better design at work.

Some differences in Dark Souls:

• tutorial messages before the first major encounter explaining the controls
• the difficulty scale between the entry level monsters and the boss is much smaller
• the player can customize their build at least a little bit by selecting their starting loadout
• the first boss is often difficult, but even if the player fails they can still progress the game since they’re expected to lose.

AC6 on the other hand lacks all of that. It gives you no tutorialization. You’re told to use a sword against shielded enemies and then you’re suppose to somehow infer that the helicopter is also weak to swords. You’re meant to build up a stagger bar to open a window for big damage, but they haven’t even mentioned the stagger bars existence at this point in the game. You’re stuck in a single mech loadout with no way to customize.

Imagine if you had to fully kill the asylum demon the first time you encounter it. You’ve got no plunge damage, no gear, no grasp of the controls, you’re just forced to walk out of the jail door and beat the boss before you can engage with any other elements of the game. That’s much closer to AC6’s presentation

Fair enough. This is indeed my first Armored Core experience and I expected an uphill struggle coming in on iteration 6 of the series, but clearly I wasn’t prepared for this :P

I’ll get there eventually. Just need to keep ramming my head against it until something clicks

It’s not like their complaints are entirely without merit though. I expected difficulty with a From Software game but usually there is an on-ramp to the difficulty.

In AC6 that’s completely missing. You’re given four trivial fights with almost no tutorialization before being put against a boss that expects you to know about the (yet unexplained) stagger bar and also expects you to use your sword against the helicopter which is somewhat unintuitive, especially since you’ve only been told to use the sword once and it was against enemies with a shield which reinforces the idea that sword beats shield, and the helicopter has no shield.