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

Yikes. That last paragraph talking about the films plot makes it read like they’re trying to advertise the upcoming movie on top of someone’s death.

When did I say Biden is to blame for everything?

I mean, sure, you didn’t type that exact sentence but when you provided an itemized list of why Biden is to blame for each item in my original comment, it’s not a huge leap of logic to think you blame Biden for these things.

It’s interesting to see the assumptions and projections you put onto me. All I’ve said (or implied snarkily) is that the housing and homelessness crisis that we’re seeing in America is a multifaceted issue, and much larger than trying to simply blame one man.

For what it’s worth, I have no love for Biden and think he could be doing a hell of a lot more from his position, as could the rest of the corporate Democrat party, as could literally any Republican with a spine, but unfortunately we’re stuck with a party that won’t act and a party whose only purpose is to block the other.

I still don’t think you can distill the housing issue down to just ‘Biden bad’ though, so you should really do some introspection and see if your anger towards Biden might be blurring your viewpoint a little bit

You cracked the case!

It wasn’t anything like coordinated rent increases from large groups of landlords using a pricing app, it wasn’t a worldwide pandemic disrupting the market, it wasn’t America keeping housing as an investment vehicle instead of a means of sheltering humans, it wasn’t decades of wealthy investors buying housing to convert into rentals.

Nope, all of that complexity can be tossed out the window because one single man is to blame: Joe Biden. All in his first term as president too!

It’s because behind both parties is a unified force known as the military industrial complex, which loves any excuse to make and sell weapons.

Say our government decides to send 100 million dollars in military aid to another country. Most, if not all, of that 100 million is sent as physical armaments rather than actual currency. The government gives companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc the actual money for this aid effort, and their products (weapons of war) are what is sent along as aid.

As it turns out, companies like the aforementioned love any excuse to sell more weapons, and carry large amounts of sway with politicians on both sides of the aisle, so they pressure those sales to continue.

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.