Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police

• CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You are seriously confused.

  And you are seriously trying ot kill the messenger.

  OP specifically said that you’re fucked if there is no visual cue.

  And I’m saying there’s ALWAYS a visual clue/cue, always. Either the bike is there one minute and gone another, or a fight breaks out and trashes the place from the fight. There’s always a visual difference.

  source

  • nexguy@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Absolutely not true. Guy walks bye and shoots someone well offscreen. Momentary action with no visual cue before or after. Why are you arguing this useless point?

    source

    • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Absolutely not true. Guy walks bye and shoots someone well offscreen. Momentary action with no visual cue before or after. Why are you arguing this useless point?

      The person dropping to the ground dead would be the visual cue.

      source

      • nexguy@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        …well offscreen… wow

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • jadero@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Not if he’s off screen. It’s only a visual cue if it’s captured by the video.

        If you have a separate video of the guy falling over dead, you can use that video to get a window of time to view in the other video, but one video that captures only parts of the scene can easily leave you with no visual cues.

        source
  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ok but the text that you replied to, that you quoted, was “If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault), then binary search is practically useless.” Emphasis mine. If you’d started out saying “there’s ALWAYS a visual cue,” then you likely wouldn’t be getting dragged, but you started out arguing from this position without clarifying it, which makes it seem like you didn’t know what you were talking about. You can’t say that you can simply look for visual cues when the other person specified that there were none.

    source

    • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Ok but the text that you replied to, that you quoted, was “If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault), then binary search is practically useless.” Emphasis mine. If you’d started out saying “there’s ALWAYS a visual cue,” then you likely wouldn’t be getting dragged, but you started out arguing from this position without clarifying it, which makes it seem like you didn’t know what you were talking about.

      Last time I checked, I’m allow to disagree with a comment someone made, and argue the opposite. Just because they say ‘no visual cue’ does not mean that is no visual cue.

      You can’t say that you can simply look for visual cues when the other person specified that there were none.

      Yes I can. Of course I can (unless you’re advocating I’m not allowed to disagree and argue that point).

      Its called “disagreeing” with what the other person is speaking of. Its a discussion.

      source

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Just because they say ‘no visual cue’ does not mean that is no visual cue.

        It literally, explicitly does, because they are talking about a hypothetical situation where no visual cues are left. If no visual cues are left, then there are no visual cues to see. It’s like if I talk about a hypothetical purple elephant. Elephants aren’t purple, and as far as I’m aware there have never been any purple elephants, but the hypothetical elephant that I’m talking about is purple, because that’s how I defined it.

        Why, because you say so? Yes, I can. Of course I can.

        Okay. I should have been extremely specific. You cannot rightly and correctly say that there are visual cues that could be found when the other person explicitly says that there are no visual cues to be found, because in the hypothetical situation that they’ve brought up, there would be no visual cues to find, and so while you are physically capable of stating the phrase “just look for the visual cues,” you are incorrect in the assumption that there would be visual cues to find.

        When somebody says “you can’t say” followed by a statement that’s incorrect, they aren’t trying to tell you that you are physically incapable of saying that statement; rather, there is an implicit “correctly” or “honestly” between the “can’t” and “say.”

        source

        • -> View More Comments