doall

By the way, Vectordash is the most interesting idea & service I have seen in a while :)

For example, in the winter olympics, there was a world class ski player that had been a champion for the world cups but not an olympic medalist. She already had been in positions like 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th and she just wanted nothing but a medal. In the Vancouver olympics, she went to the final round and was very close to winning a bronze medal, but finished in 4th place. She bursted into tears and clearly seemed very unhappy in the interview.

In the opposite case, if reality is far lower than expectations, like you couldn't even pass the qualification round, you can think that like an accident. I have seen this in the PyeongChang olympics that some good players not even passing the qualification round because of the windy weather. They clearly looked unhappy, but not bursting into tears, because blaming the wind will relax their unhappiness.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/homotopytypetheory

You will get answers from real experts with updated views.

https://chatolab.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/shen-programming-l...

Shen to JVM bytecode compiler in Java 6 https://github.com/otabat/shen-jvm

Shen to JVM bytecode compiler in Java 8 with indy https://github.com/hraberg/Shen.java

"ZGC has been designed with the following goals in mind:

- Handle multi-terabyte heaps

- GC pause times not exceeding 10ms

- No more than 15% application throughput reduction compared to using G1"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/homotopytypetheory/K...

I have been dreaming that one day we will have a fully developed type system for programming languages based on HoTT and I can develop a new language based on that.

Then your nationality is Japan or not? Interesting to hear.

> Nice try to completely avoided the actual facts of the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and Unit 731. Regardless of what the U.S. does now ( and I agree some of it is awful), Japan's armies raped, tortured and murdered enormous numbers of POWs and civilians during WWII.

Even if some include propaganda from the Chinese government, I have already said "both Japan and the US did bad things in the past." and not completely avoided the facts. You even did not answer my questions. Please read my comments carefully.

> You can't deny it any more than I can deny that the U.S. currently kills terrorism suspects with drones.

Oh yes, babies are terrorist suspects, doctors and patients in hospitals are also terrorist suspects. Aren't they?

> The dropping of the bombs was clearly humane.

If dropping atomic bombs is clearly humane, why not use them in every war? The US should use them in every war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki but they have not. Atomic bomb is considered one of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, that even the US justifies for starting a war in Iraq for the suspicion of them for just having a WMD. Clearly using atomic bombs is an inhuman action and the US knows it. That is why they have not used it anymore.

> The Emperor and military were going to use millions of civilians as human shields and weapons during the invasion. They refused to surrender unconditionally until the bombs were dropped. They intended to duplicate the results of the "Divine Wind" yielded against the Mongols, only using human lives instead of a hurricane. All so they could retain their "empire" and their ability to subject Chinese, Koreans, and peoples across the NW pacific.

Again I have already said "the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier". You seem to rush into conclusions without reading my comments carefully and many times having a false conclusion. At the present day, atomic bomb is a WMD and using WMD is clearly considered an inhuman action also by the US government themselves.

Killing combatants in war is different from "torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs" or "committed millions of atrocities". Please be more specific, accurate and show sources if you want to talk about this kind of large numbers.

>Their government denies virtually every single one.

Wow virtually every single one? So there might be lots of examples. Please show them so that I can check the validity of your claim. I am suspicious that you are exaggerating stuff like the Chinese government.

> the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event.

Death is different from raping. You should not mix them up. Killing or raping is bad no matter what.

> They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments.

Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids.

>And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it.

Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.

The Japanese government was preparing for the surrender for a year before Hiroshima. They were also talking with the Soviet Union for peace negotiations months before. It was matter of time for surrender and just the condition which was not decided. Japanese government has not enslaved like what the US did to Africa.

>Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them?

As I said, there were alternative ways without killing that much and using atomic bombs in the city twice. It is just that the US took the easy path.

> War is hell.

Yes, very true.

> The US didn't rape Nanking

The large number claimed by the current Chinese government of which country that does internet censorship and anti-Japan campaign is a propaganda which is officially denied by the Japanese government and historians.

> It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor was definitely bad. But mostly killed were combatants that is different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs.

Wow millions? Where did this large number come from?

> The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.

They were trying to have a better condition for surrender. Surrender was a matter of time and the US didn't have to drop the atomic bombs twice in the city.

It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment.

> It might take months to make and deliver more.

Wait until you are prepared. Or you can stop with a bomb. The US was preparing for 10 bombs until the end of the year.

> Thousands were dying every day on both sides.

No, such number of non-combatants were dying only in Japan.

> The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed?

No, the bombing succeeded. No need for second one. Also Japan was ready to surrender two months before Hiroshima.

>Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled.

The bombing in Tokyo is also known as one of the most inhuman bombing ever recorded. Bombing never happens like a natural disaster. If the US does not take such action it will never happen.

You only talk about one side of the history, and you should definitely learn from both sides.

> You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays.

Only if the US tries to kill the non-combatants. It is not a natural disaster.

>You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.

You don't understand how atomic bomb survivors have been enduring physically for their whole life. It is different from a regular bomb. It is an inhuman action to use them for humans and the US is the only one who actually used it ever in the history.

No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the mountains or along the sea coast to show the power of the bomb. If it doesn't work, do it multiple times in different locations. After that drop it to the military camps. If all doesn't go well drop to the city. Also it didn't have to happen twice in the city, because it was a matter of time for the Japanese government to surrender. It was just an inhuman action to drop two atomic bombs in the city skipping all of these steps.

>The confusion seems to stem from your insistence on using the word "original" to mean the pure Lisp described in the 1960 paper, despite the fact there was Lisp before that. It seems like it's mostly a disagreement about the meaning of the word original; I consider your use misleading.

Yes I should have used a different word and I am sorry for making a confusion. After this long discussion about the history of LISP, I can now come up with a better word instead of using "original", and also I have an updated view of the LISP history.

>As I said several times, The 1960 paper describes a pure subset of Lisp, I was only disagreeing that it was the original Lisp.

Great!

>I think we understand each other now.

Yes it seems so.

>It was nice reading some old papers I hadn't seen before :)

Definitely true and thanks for having a very long discussion :)

Not true. I also consider LISP I as LISP, Common Lisp as LISP, and understand people calling Scheme as LISP, or Clojure as LISP. I really respect all of the works involving the LISP family.

>The paper you quoted said that Lisp was originally conceived as an non-pure language (the part I quoted) and that that was unfortunate, but true (the part you quoted).

The paper is referring LISP to the actual implementation and that is impure as we know. From the part I quoted, he had both pure and non-pure ideas and that I call "not black or white".

>So you meant to say that the 1960 paper was the first description of a pure language.

No I did not say this. Since it is not clear if it is the first pure language or not.

>Calling the 1960 paper's subset of Lisp "the original LISP"

I have already explained what I meant. I will also add that since the 1960 paper is so called "the original LISP paper", and the paper refers to the LISP implementation and describes a pure core LISP, I called the pure part "the original LISP" meaning the core of LISP in the original LISP paper. The most important part is the meaning and since I have explained what I meant, if you are not satisfied with the wordings, just use a different symbol "XXX LISP" and you will be satisfied.

>and disregarding the already-existing implemented Lisp system which the paper acknowledges,

No I am not. You seem to be disregarding that a pure LISP can be constructed from the idea in the paper.

>as well as McCarthy's previous writing on the subject, is misleading at best.

Not true.

I didn't say this. I have already explained about the difference between the first LISP implementation and the core language written in the 1960 paper. There is no one true definition of LISP and I have already talked about this. People have different views of what LISP is.

You said black and white and it is not true from the paper I have shown.

>In the 1958 paper, he was already describing a language with mutable objects.

I am not talking about the 1958 paper. I am not also talking about which idea is first or not. Since it is not written clearly in the papers shown so far which idea is first, but I have showed that it is not black or white. Graham and my claim is based on the so called "original LISP paper" in 1960 and the pure version of LISP is written in it.

You and I have different views of LISP and that is OK. But please don't force your view to us, since there is no one true definition or interpretation of LISP.

"One mathematical consideration that influenced LISP was to express programs as applicative expressions built up from variables and constants using functions. I considered it important to make these expressions obey the usual mathematical laws allowing replacement of expressions by expressions giving the same value. The motive was to allow proofs of properties of programs using ordinary mathematical methods. This is only possible to the extent that side-effects can be avoided. Unfortunately, side-effects are often a great convenience when computational efficiency is important, and “functions” with side-effects are present in LISP."

Seems not black or white to me. This paper is also written by McCarthy. He had pureness in his mind, but the real implementation had side-effects for practical reasons.

>McCarthy's original conception of Lisp was not purely functional (according to McCarthy himself as well as the historical evidence)

Again not black or white (according to McCarthy himself). The pure language is written in the original LISP paper and Graham and I viewed it as the core and it also showed the pureness of LISP.

>so how would the purely functional subset described in a later paper be "the original LISP" if you aren't denying the earlier work?

Again the definition. I have already explained what I meant with "the original LISP".

Since the 1960 paper is after the LISP I manual and Graham's article is based on that paper the actual wordings are clearly influenced by LISP1.

>What Graham's Paper is describing is a back formation abstracted from what they got running on that IBM 704.

We viewed it as the core of LISP.

>Since code-is-data is the core of Lisp

Yes an another important part of LISP.

Since LISP I is the real first implementation, I don't mean the original LISP in the sense of the first LISP, but rather "a core of LISP defined in the original paper". I called that the original LISP. I have explained this view many times so far.

>McCarthy's original idea of Lisp was not purely functional

At least McCarthy had some pureness in his mind for LISP and it is not black or white argument.

>the original Lisp implementation was not purely functional.

True.

> but what you and Paul Graham seem to be doing is saying that that pure Lisp is the real Lisp and what was called Lisp before that (in theory and implementation)

This is not my intention.