Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months agoAnd to recap, what you said is:
If an event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue, you will see that event happen using a binary search.
Which is, of course, false.
It’s not false if the event changes the environment around it, which was my point.
You incorrectly assuming a completely clean and static event that does not affect anything around it afterwards, and in the real world that’s just not usually the case.
And for the record, I never said it works 100% of the time.
null@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
No it wasn’t. That’s neither implied nor explicitly stated in your initial reply.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I honestly thought it was implied, because to me of course it makes perfect sense, it’s common sense.
When an event happens, the environment around it would change. Human beings never do something statically without affecting their environment, which is why I was responding in the first place, to counter the “virtually undetectable” point.
I was disagreeing with the point being expressed that it would be undetectable, and hence, unusable.
sukhmel@programming.dev 7 months ago
I would guess that you assume environment is changed most of the time, because a footage where it changes gets more attention than a footage where it doesn’t. There are a lot of cams with virtually nothing changing in the view between people passing.
Also, if everyone changes the environment binary search would give lots of false detections in case you don’t know what exactly to expect (like when you mentioned toppling a trash can)
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
But by ‘change the environment’ I mean the event itself does the change, and not other humans doing non-event things. Though people can congregate around a location of where an event happens and loiter there, and that would be a marker as well.
null@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
No, that wasn’t the intention of your original reply. Makes no sense in the context of your response. Just goalposts you’ve moved after the fact.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You’re being intellectually dishonest. I explaned truthfully what my implied thoughts were. You can’t change them just because you want to win an Internet point.