fenynro

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

The other side of this being someone saying "we're not going to legislate anything that will help you, and fuck you for asking, but vote for us because we won't actively genocide you" which is not really a great selling point but yeah at least we're avoiding the worse stuff.

It's a bit ironic that it's always "Vote for Democrats or democracy dies" when that setup is inherently undemocratic, since your vote can't go anywhere but the single choice that lets you still have a vote

Congrats! I recently just got Bolt as my first legendary after nearly a decade of on and off playing, and that feeling after finally finishing the craft is incredible.

Dig your aesthetic too :)

Yeah let's compare it to a list of things that Republicans have touched that have objectively improved:

• ?

You're right, that's way better :)

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

How about you start a fundraiser that generates over 850k for relief efforts, and then I'll be happy to imagine that you've contributed to it.

Whether you actually did or not is irrelevant, because you'll have raised nearly a million dollars for a good cause

If they can't afford to sit on multiple empty houses due to increased AirBnB regulations, then they can always sell some of those assets back into the market. In fact, that's the point of the regulation :P

The idea of some poor landlord barely scraping things together because their 50 rental properties (and thus millions of dollars worth of assets) are less profitable is preposterous