Great and all, but what about the legality of it all?
It wouldn't be the first time that a decompilation project gets shut down.
Reverse engineering is (luckily) OK, but reproducing (or, well, releasing) the actual original code with the help of decompilation isn't really allowed, is it?
They get griefed once in a while but the highway builders have pretty amazing automation these days so it’s not only very boring to grief they will also almost instantly be repaired.
> We know this because your IP address was the first thing your device sent us.
First paragraph, and I don't like this wording already. It's as if "my device" has any choice in the matter.
And actually, it's the reverse! Often enough your own device does not know your _actual_ public IP address without asking some kind of public service to snitch on your internet connection.
> I worked on this project intermittently for 10 years, until recent developments in LLMs finally made it possible to complete this seemingly never-ending task.
I've been working on my own MFC C++ decompilation project. It's insane how useful LLMs are for this.
For years, even leading up to starting the decommission of the power plants, Engie has been saying it's literally impossible to reverse the decision. And now that we're 2 years into the decommission, suddenly it is possible after all.
How is that possible? And what are the consequences?
They said it was impossible for them to reverse the decision. Nothing has changed; they won’t be in charge of that. The state will.
A significant reason of the “impossibility” of reversing the decision is the regulations around nuclear. Take the problem of micro tears in the concrete. Engie could have maintained the concrete. Because the plant was scheduled for decommission, they did not. So there will be small tears in the concrete. The law does not allow those small tears. Repairing the concrete now is too expensive.
The plant will be owned by the state so now the state has two options: (1) invest a truckload of money to repair the concrete or (2) change the law to allow small tears which have virtually no security consequences anyway.
We all know that the state will choose option (2) but there would be far more opposition if they did so while the plant were owned by a private company that is making profit rather than owned by the state which is operating at a deficit.
Reverse engineering is (luckily) OK, but reproducing (or, well, releasing) the actual original code with the help of decompilation isn't really allowed, is it?
reply