There must be something that we compute that assembles languages, not languages assembled. When that core decentralized, then we could not assume the core is within the center. Let's compare that idea to the syllables in words, so we called them syllables instead of intermediate words. The boundary of words are clear through-out the species, and this may be ideal. Consider the diversity of sounds known by the mission. At the assembly level, multicultural sounds for syllables, with certain accents, ran through our species.
We know not everybody teaches baby steps every moment, not everybody teaches syllables; we know people that have taken that much for granted. I've heard people that said one sentence once, and it immediately translated into multiple languages; within the science of execution, we compute the reverse, so I have explained below what this is like.
When we optimize the reverse, then we think within the verse, more easily said the inverse (in forward sense). If we consider the universe as the higher-level language, then the metaverses are the assembly languages. Is the universe or metaverse greater? Some said, “the universe is all there is [in existence].”
Church missions focus on the single universe, yet they judged themselves with their own prison without walls they call the universe, and they want specific languages that other churches do not want. Other higher-level languages exist, yet together these higher-level languages have some core that work like an ambassador. How could you invest in some business that does not hire people with diplomas? Let me say that everyone translates, not everyone translated.
When you objected to some space, is that an order? To the computer, yes it was an order. Likewise, if someone said another universe exists, would you object? Not everybody wants that reality, and the basic mission keep us aware of those changes.
“Computers are people, too.”
– [famous expression], and book
Assembly language is half-way. There is much logic analysis (if you follow): half the truth is not the whole-truth. Is there solid truth in constancy? In “E equal m c squared,” does the “c” mean constancy or solid truth? That was not some bizarre question when you wanted computability of it, yet people think we are bizarre when we express its “assembled understandings.” We have ways that make it easier.
How about if we changed “c squared” such that you have half and I have the other half, so that's now “c sub one” and “c sub two” as the result. We wanted the instruction set that does that, and we want that set with the dynamic quality. That's more like mental agility rather than intelligence; yes, you need intelligence for higher-level languages. When people use only syllables, they do not sound too highly intelligent; it's more like “travel” (in thought) yet the agreement was “at the speed of light.”
[Note: pure english avoids syllables as much as possible (i.e. “trav”-”vel” not “tra”-”vel”); word boundaries are more explicit. That's evidence that English coronations were french; “o-m-g!” The truth of that (and that) remains one of those “royal secrets,” yet it is obvious (and “l'ordanaire”) to people that are tone-deaf. That means something when you consider the clear, but subtle, difference between “psychotic” and “psychosis”, as it's impossible to say “...chot...” and “...chos...” the same before shorten to “cho”. Let's move on...]
We wanted that easier.... at least easier maintainability instead of some new core every new generation. We know there is some consistency in the lower-level interaction.
Computer Scientists removed the magic numbers from equations, and they denoted the more arithmetic expression with computability. We found more doctors chose the higher-level languages more often through their document-everything-first approach, of course. As doctors research DNA for genetic codes, we haven't expected them to convert those genes into assembly language, not that it is impossible. One DNA strand is like the universe to any creature (or bug) of that scale or smaller.
Our once binary machines now grew-up and became VMs that want something other than binary code. They interact with more. They also need energy, which higher-level languages don't express in concurrency. Of course, we realized something already costs too much in the infinite tense of higher-level languages despite that ease (of something known beyond the limits).
Even more powerful than the opinion of Justices is the Justices' use of reflection (i.e. of those “knowns”). In Ag-Biotech, there is wisdom in use of the environment-first for reflection of the human body instead of the other way around. In the intermediate languages, something false still has truth of that value. We found that difference, maybe heroically or by “fu,” between the virtues of honor and valor.
The higher-level programming languages that did not compile to any intermediate language missed that virtue: valor.