5 ms·
In fact, the official line [0] on where the name comes from is quite funny. I shall quote my favourite part: > [Dynamic] also has a very interesting property a
by roenxi 3y ago
In fact, the official line [0] on where the name comes from is quite funny. I shall quote my favourite part:
> [Dynamic] also has a very interesting property as an adjective, and that is it's impossible to use the word dynamic in a pejorative sense. Try thinking of some combination that will possibly give it a pejorative meaning. It's impossible. Thus, I thought dynamic programming was a good name. It was something not even a Congressman could object to.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming#History
- smokel 3y agoDynamic typing comes to mind ;)
- kevindamm 3y agoDynamic scoping ;)
- tempodox 3y agoYou cannot get any more pejorative. Mission accomplished!
- peterfirefly 3y agoDynamic ethics.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoMy dad told me a joke/story once about one of his old psychologist colleagues(call him Dave) arguing with a psychoanalyst* about some psychology thing. After a while of the discussion going nowhere, the psychoanalyst said something like this. "Not to worry, Dave, I know you're dynamically minded enough that you'll eventually learn to agree with me." Dave was not pleased. I guess that was more condescending than pejorative, but oh well. (Most modern clinical psychologists consider psychoanalysis to be a pseduoscience. A small minority still practice it even clinically. They don't like eachother very much)
- savolai 3y agoCare to offer evidence of pseudoscience status? All I could find was debunkings of this claim as myth and outdated, and to my understanding research in the field has caught wind in past decades. I’d love to learn more about the debate, so any pointers are welcome. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020924/ https://cosmonautmag.com/2021/10/on-the-scientific-status-of-psychoanalysis/ https://cosmonautmag.com/2021/10/on-the-scientific-status-of... ” Depending on where your philosophical allegiances lie, Karl Popper might be a friend or an enemy to whatever version of philosophy of science you accept. Falsificationist approaches to science imply that psychoanalysis makes untestable and unfalsifiable claims! Popper made the very same claims about Marxist social theory as well. There are two issues with this approach. One, if falsificationism is true, then all social sciences, and even some natural sciences, are pseudo-scientific. This is an unacceptable conclusion since much of social science is clearly science. Lots of cutting-edge physics whose models do not lend themselves to controlled experimental testing would also lose their status as science. That is also an absurd conclusion. Newtonian mechanics, for example, would never have been accepted as a theory if we use Popper’s standards of theory corroboration and falsifiability. The theory offered better ways of explaining phenomenon that previous theories were already decent at predicting reliably. The process of legitimizing Newtonian physics had nothing to do with testability.4 A good theory of science does not rule out obvious cases of scientific rigor.5”
- User23 3y agoThe burden of proof lies on them that claim it’s a “real” science.
- qsantos 3y agoIt _is_ a funny quote. But I would still point out that this is the exact reason “dynamic” does not help if you do not know about the history. Since it can be applied to anything, it does not help you trim down what it can refer to.
- karmakaze 3y agoScripting languages are called 'dynamic' sometimes pejoratively. Dynamic microphones are also inferior in studio recording situations. I could see a poor DP implementation wasting memory being described negatively.