151–160 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying to explain why a Minecraft Legacy leak is worth anything when we have decompiled Java takes too long.
i'll bite: explain
Decompiled code is great, but having access to the “real” code gives you more insight into design decisions and directions.
Being the Vita/360 versions makes this much more usable. I would be having a little panic attack if I had to go back to working on PS2 only code. I mean you came to like the thing but I'm convinced it was a form of digital Stockholm syndrome.
I've only played the original PlayStation 2 release, but wasn't the PS2 release of Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance the version with the most content? I'd take a leak of that one over the other versions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone focuses on that part, but what the hell was with the girl that could repel bullets but it turns out that it was magnets but actually maybe she does have powers? And what about the weird thing where you start sword fighting your father/president/clone? Yeah I know, sure, fake information on the internet. It's so prescient I guess, but the actual story is incomprehensible.
> but what the hell was with the girl that could repel bullets but it turns out that it was magnets but actually maybe she does have powers? MGS always rides the line between "it's actually just tecnology" and "no, it was really supernatural." This is true of Psycho Mantis in MGS1 as well, and The Sorrow in MGS3 is literally a ghost. I assume that Kojima has read up on the Stargate Project and other psychic soldier p…
Like you have a giant bipedal (well... most of the times) autonomous robot armed with a nuclear tipped missiles launched by a railgun which can destory the whole countries ... and the said robot is defeated by shoot-out against a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game just had an update to support the Switch 2 only 2 months ago. It is still being used commercially.
It is also trivial to emulate these days, so to me I don't see any potential lost sales. Worst case it reveals some mostly already suspected story details that were cut or left unstated in the final versions. MGS4 might still have some value because you need expensive hardware to emulate decently and it isn't perfect still. But a 15 year old computer can emulate MGS2 better than it originally ran on the xbox.
And you don't even need to emulate it because there was an official Windows port... well you probably need to emulate Windows XP to make it even run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but what the hell was with the girl that could repel bullets but it turns out that it was magnets but actually maybe she does have powers? MGS always rides the line between "it's actually just tecnology" and "no, it was really supernatural." This is true of Psycho Mantis in MGS1 as well, and The Sorrow in MGS3 is literally a ghost. I assume that Kojima has read up on the Stargate Project and other psychic soldier p…
Yep, it's funny when people get too serious and completely ignore the rule of cool. Like you have a giant bipedal (well... most of the times) autonomous robot armed with a nuclear tipped missiles launched by a railgun which can destory the whole countries ... and the said robot is defeated by shoot-out against a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Culture may belong to people, but intellectual property like source code doesn't. > It is extremely natural for someone to have ownership over what one has created. Intelectual property is an oxymoron, and no oxymoron can be natural. Only scarce things can be property. Making non-scarce things (e.g. binary code) act as property is conflict-seeking behavior that often results in the violation of real ownership of ot…
>Only scarce things can be property. Abundant things can be property too. Property is about ownership. Intellectual property is a subcategory of property. It isn't an oxymoron. >NDA do not protect IPs. But they do indicate intent. >someone can "steal" (copy) my beatiful design I was talking about the physical object. They may think it is of such importance that it should live in a museum instead of as your private pr…
The legally and ethically relevant concept of ownership is about dealing with mutual exclusivity of material resources and avoiding its conflicts. Abudant things, in this context, do not have mutual exclusivity and, as such, are not ownable in a natural sense.
> But they do indicate intent.
And?
> I was talking about the physical object.
Sure, but we are talking about IPs, not real property, so I fail to see how this example is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are way past "working compilation" when it comes to LLMs. They are already really good at writing readable, compliable code. The big problem with LLMs is making sure the output binary actually does what you wanted it to do. But if you define the goal not merely as instructions in a vague, unspecific human language and rather as recreating a given set of binary instructions after compilation, this big drawback goes…
My point is that we have been past the "working compilation" way before LLMs, and I do not think anything in LLMs help with it, at best agents use these tools with the same efficiency. I disagree that they're good at writing compilable code, but agree on the readable part.
>I disagree that they're good at writing compilable code
That was never part of the discussion, because as explained several times now it is irrelevant in this case. The existence of the original binary means all you need to do is match up things, which can be automated completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that we have been past the "working compilation" way before LLMs, and I do not think anything in LLMs help with it, at best agents use these tools with the same efficiency. I disagree that they're good at writing compilable code, but agree on the readable part.
Which decompiler reliably produced working, high level C/C++ from assembly? I would have loved to use this thing you are describing here 15 years ago. Compilation is inherently lossy, so any system that could have given you this would have needed pretty heavy LLM-like features anyways. >I disagree that they're good at writing compilable code That was never part of the discussion, because as explained several times no…
The problem is readability. No one in his right mind would call what they generate "C++". Mine still interjects assembler from time to time (and not the new version that GCC supports, but the older MSVC style) .
LLMs absolutely do not help with the generate working code part, because this is an exact problem that doesn't need nor benefit from an LLM (other than maybe automating stupid iteration?). They can help with the readability part, because here once you already have a working skeleton it doesn't matter that much if they make mistakes, as it is easy to detect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which decompiler reliably produced working, high level C/C++ from assembly? I would have loved to use this thing you are describing here 15 years ago. Compilation is inherently lossy, so any system that could have given you this would have needed pretty heavy LLM-like features anyways. >I disagree that they're good at writing compilable code That was never part of the discussion, because as explained several times no…
I do not understand what is it so hard to "generate working code". Even the free version of Hexrays was doing it 15 years ago, and I have written one in my company that I have used for over 30 years. It's actually ... trivial? The problem is readability. No one in his right mind would call what they generate "C++". Mine still interjects assembler from time to time (and not the new version that GCC supports, but the o…
If what you said was true, the projects mentioned above wouldn't have needed years of arduous work before the age of LLMs came to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not understand what is it so hard to "generate working code". Even the free version of Hexrays was doing it 15 years ago, and I have written one in my company that I have used for over 30 years. It's actually ... trivial? The problem is readability. No one in his right mind would call what they generate "C++". Mine still interjects assembler from time to time (and not the new version that GCC supports, but the o…
I already asked, but I guess I'll need to ask again: Please show me this tool. Hex-rays is certainly the wrong answer, because the decompiled C code usually needs tons of manual cleaning, fixing datatypes and reconstructing function prototypes before you can compile. And even then you can't be sure about functional (much less binary) equivalence. If anything, all these traditional decompilers focused on readability,…