Comment on Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police

• CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s not false if the event changes the environment around it, which was my point.

  No it wasn’t. That’s neither implied nor explicitly stated in your initial reply.

  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.

  source

  • sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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)

    source

    • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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)

      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.

      source
  • null@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source

    • CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No, that wasn’t the intention of your original reply. Makes no sense in the context of your original response. Just goalposts you’ve moved after the fact.

      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.

      source

      • null@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No I’m not. Your explanation does not align with what you quoted and stated in your initial replies. They’re poor attempts at retroactively making it seem like you were implying something you obviously weren’t.

        source

        • -> View More Comments