• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • BleakBluets@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlyou. little. shi.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    I know you’re mostly joking, but that might have actually been my bad. I edited to add the spoiler tag minutes after I posted the link (mostly as a joke) even though this is probably one of the most well known plot points ever. It might have still done that if the link was inside a spoiler tag though.

    I didn’t consider the bot when I commented, but next time I’ll remember not to have the clickable link text be the spoiler. That way the bot doesn’t repeat it.






  • BleakBluets@lemmy.worldtoMemes@sopuli.xyzProportional response
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I may be remembering this video essay from Shaun a little inaccurately, but I recall that Japan was preparing a surrender anyway, and was in talks with the USA, but the argument was whether the surrender would be unconditional or conditional (Japan wanted to keep the emperor in power). The US was worried about an impending Soviet invasion of Japan because they didn’t want the Soviet Union to have influence in post-war negotiaions (i.e. landgrabs). The US didn’t want to send in troops for a land invasion, so they decided to hasten Japan’s surrender with the atomic bombings of major cities (terrorism tactics, in my opinion, just like the much deadlier firebombings).

    Americans (including me) are commonly taught that the bombs were the only choice in order to prevent lost lives of American troops, but the impression I remember getting from the video is that (my opinion) there was never a risk of an American ground troop invasion, and not a risk of another Japanese attack. Japan would have either surrendered or been invaded by the Soviets.

    The kicker is that Japan surrendered unconditionally to the US, but in the end, the US decided that the emperor should stay in power anyway, so those civilian deaths to the atomic bombs were always unnecessary.






  • I thought decompiling with Ghidra was okay too, I may have just misunderstood the wiki article when I double checked post-commenting and crossed out my comment. I’m not entirely sure what comprises “proprietary techniques”. But I’m pretty sure that documentation needs to be provided in order to keep it on the legal side. Hopefully this project can come back and recieve continued support ala similar decomp projects.


  • I think the binary they distributed still included the art and sound assets; the users didn’t have to provide their own. And “clean-room” design is more than just providing source code. You need to provide a “paper trial” / commit history and documentation of how the final code was derived from the original code. My mistake, clean room is when you recreate the project without reading the original/compiled code at all. Specifications are written based on observed behaviors of the original user-facing program and new code is written according to that.


  • Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a way to release this while avoiding the issue of copyright? My understanding is that publishing “clean-room” reverse engineered code is legal. The graphics and sound can’t be redistributed, but you can distribute a tool to rip those assests from a ROM and let the users provide a ROM they own. This is what Ship of Harkinian does no?




  • BleakBluets@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I was stubborn about this for so long, and I’m still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.

    Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The “choice to switch” is really just a second round of the game, but with a 1/2 chance of winning (wrong, your odds change only if you “participate” in round two).

    If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the 1/2 odds of the “second round”.

    Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn’t be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.