Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police

• 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.

  source

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ok. I initially responded that I didn’t even read your response, because I didn’t, and I just asked again if you are OK. And I really meant it.

    But that seemed rude, so I deleted it, and I read your comment. I’m going to skip over the earlier parts and move to the end of your comment.

    Ok! That makes me feel better. If you’re just mixing it up and having fun arguing on the internet, I get it. You’ve got time and you’re having fun. That’s cool, man. It just comes off a little weird to people, I feel.

    I, while I respect what you’re saying, don’t want to spend time arguing the point. If I could, I would just like to explain to you what my understanding of the situation is, and then, if you disagree, I’ll respect that.

    Binary search is effective for many things. However: imagine a camera on a blank white wall that was recorded for 24 hours.

    At some point during that 24 hours, two people crossed in front of the wall the was being recorded, and one punched the other and then ran out of frame, and the other person ran after them out of frame. The entire time on screen was a few seconds. The wall was completely unchanged by the encounter.

    In that very particular instance, rare as it might seem, binary search will not be more efficient for locating the footage. Does that make sense?

    source

    • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Ok. I initially responded that I didn’t even read your response, because I didn’t, and I just asked again if you are OK. And I really meant it.

      But that seemed rude, so I deleted it, and I read your comment.

      I appreciate your politeness, sincerely, and thank you for the removal.

      The level of toxicity being thrown at me by people (not you) for just discussing when a binary seach is effective or not, that does harm someone, especially when one is just seeking conversation, but that’s the Internet, not much you can do about that, except ask people to stop (which usually gets more toxicity thrown at you).

      It just comes off a little weird to people, I feel.

      Well, people are not used to someone defending their position well (right or wrong). And talking about being used to train bots tends to make others think of tinfoil hat scenarios, so I get it. But it does really happen in real life (I know).

      Binary search is effective for many things. However: imagine a camera on a blank white wall that was recorded for 24 hours. …

      As someone who has written binary searches before, I understand that the duration of the event is important, and that short durations make its search effectiveness less than long durations.

      But the point I keep hammering on is that its not just the duration of the event that matters, its also if the environment the event happens in and how it changes at the point of the event, for any reason, matters. All you need is for the static image to change from one thing to another, for ANY reason, at the point of the event. And when it comes to humans, that is the norm (change).

      Yes, you can describe a scenario where a binary search would not work, but it most likely wouldn’t be a real-world event you are describing (like who would point a camera at a small section of wall and just that small section?).

      And a final word for anyone who gets to this point and reads this (this is not directed at you personally). …

      I would ask others to consider if those who are running things would want (or not) the general public to realize binary search’s potential effectiveness in crime resolution, and demand it being on video tapes when a crime happens, and how they may react to those who advocate for its use.

      source

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Ok, fair enough. So you understand in that unusual circumstance where the static image remains provably unchanged, it would make binary search ineffective, but I take your point: most real-world events will create a change in the static image, even if it seems minor (even in ways a human might not notice), which would then allow the effective use of binary search.

        Thanks for taking a second to talk it out with me.

        source