You are trying really hard for some reason to fit a binary search into a discussion about a situation where it clearly does not belong. Very weird but very passionate I applaud you.
Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 months agoGuy walks bye and shoots someone well offscreen.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that the guy walking by was off screen, and the person on screen was shot, since the focus of the conversation was about binary search based on what’s on the video.
In that case the shooter, walking up and then holding up a gun and pulling the trigger would be the marker, as well as the puff of smoke, for the binary search, which could be done with AI, if not human eyes.
Also they would know the approximate time of death, so they can use that to extrapolate a range on the video that they need to binary search on. I’m pretty sure this is normal police work that I’m describing at this point.
Having said that, that’s one hell of a hypothetical you made there. At some point you could definitely come up with an example of when a binary search wouldn’t work, but not based on what the OP was discussing, or what others were discussing about two people having a fight on camera.
nexguy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You are trying really hard for some reason to fit a binary search into a discussion about a situation where it clearly does not belong. Very weird but very passionate I applaud you.
The actual/origiinal OP talks about a binary search.
Changing the focal point of discussion to fit your narration is not intellectually honest.
You’re trying to change the discussion focus point to kill the messenger.
WoahWoah@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Seriously, my guy. Are you having a mental breakdown or what? You’re accusing rational people who are just trying to explain why you’re being odd of being botnet responses, you’re constantly moving your goal posts and accusing everyone else of doing it, you’re being intellectually dishonest and accusing everyone else of doing it.
You are being transparently and irrationally defensive all because you can’t admit you made a mistake. Surely you can see this is no way to go through life and no way to spend your time, right? I’m worried about you.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Seriously, my guy. Are you having a mental breakdown or what?
Because you can judge that from tax off of an Internet comment, right? Don’t be insulted, I’ve at least treated everyone here with enough respect when I’ve conversed with them not to accuse them of being mentally ill.
You’re accusing rational people trying to correct you of being botnet responses,
Go find my conversation with others about the Falkland Islands and you’ll see the quote that I’m speaking about, that made me make that statement.
you’re constantly moving your goal posts and accusing everyone else of doing it,
No, I haven’t, and others have. I stand by what I’ve said.
you’re being intellectually dishonest and accusing everyone else of doing it.
My own words phrase exactly the same way coming right back at me. Hmm, I wonder where I’ve seen that before?
You are being transparently and irrationally defensive all because you can’t admit you made a mistake.
What mistake, exactly? That a binary search never works? I’ve never said that. That a binary search works 100% of the time? I’ve never said that either. What I’ve stated is that the majority of the time a binary search would work.
Surely you can see this is no way to go through life and no way to spend your time, right? I’m worried about you.
I’m retired, I have time on my hands, and I’m a computer nerd, so I spend that time on the Internet, like I suspect many other people do as well. And I enjoy arguing a point when I feel I’m right, I enjoy a good discussion though these days that rarely ever happens on the Internet.
Why are you trying so hard to discredit me, to kill the messenger? I appreciate your concerns, but I’m doing just fine, we’re just arguing a point on the Internet.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If you skip to after the smoke has dissipated, you cannot gather enough information to know that you need to rewind. A binary search is useless in this scenario.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Depends on how long the smoke remains in the air.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If it’s not “for the duration of the rest of the video,” then binary search would be useless
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s not true. It only has to be long enough to be detectable, by landing on a strip of video that it exists on. It’ll be harder, definately, but still doable.