You're wrong, and I don't know why you're being stubborn about this. HDP is a different class of algorithms that uses DP, but it is not DP. A basic read of wikipedia of dynamic programming reveals the key pieces of DP:
There are two key attributes that a problem must have in order for dynamic programming to be applicable: optimal substructure and overlapping sub-problems. ... Optimal substructure means that the solution to a given optimization problem can be obtained by the combination of optimal solutions to its sub-problems.
All DP algorithms guarantee an optimal result. It's a defining characteristic of DP. BLAST doesn't. I'm really surprised that you're attempting to debate this.
BLAST isn't a dynamic programming algorithm. It's not guaranteed to find an optimal solution, unlike a DP algorithm. It has some elements of DP, but that's it.
There aren't many useful applications. People who think otherwise are on par with delusional interviewers that feel compelled to ask problems with DP solutions. The vast majority of us will go our entire careers without needing to solve the Towers of Hanoi or the Egg Drop Puzzle.
TIL about one of the solvents involved, ethyl acetate, and the fact that it is not good for you. How do I know that my local coffee shop's machine is working correctly and provides only safe levels of this solvent?
>Every year, those employees get a percentage of their salaries in company stock.
Ok? Anybody can choose to do this if they work at a public company. But what happen if it's mandatory and the stock goes down? Now your labor was stolen at below market rate! Then we will hear "employees compensation should be resilient to market fluctuations."
The woman in the white shirt, tan shorts only started running because the people behind her started running. She was strolling away from the explosion. Same with green shorts in the foreground. We don't actually see him run, just walking away.
These people have no sense of urgency around danger, or they cannot recognize danger.
I don't understand the psychology of it either. It's like they think that appearing overly concerned about something potentially dangerous is more embarrassing than being killed by something actually dangerous. That or they have lived such safe and sheltered lives that they cannot identify real danger. I don't have any other explanation.
Should this be something that we shut down trade with Bangladesh over? If we continue to sell and buy stuff from a country that is gunning down its people over protests, doesn't that discredit any moral authority that we have? But at the same time, does it worsen the job situation and make the protests worse?
Silly and pointless reductionism. You assign meaning to each slice, but not to the loaf, even though the same logic applies to the "illusion" of a slice? It's turtles all the way down, and the concept of society is as real and as important as any of the other layers.