@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

starman2112

@starman2112@sh.itjust.works

He/Him Jack of all trades, master of none

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

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.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

But the comment you replied to wasn’t talking about bike thefts specifically, it was talking about unspecified situations that don’t leave traces. You responded to someone saying that binary search doesn’t work in situations that don’t leave cues not by arguing against the premise (e.g. “but no such event exists, everything leaves cues”), but by telling them that you simply have to look for the cues from the hypothetical event that didn’t leave any.

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

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.

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,” or some variation thereof, 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.”

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #