Jesus fucking Christ, I know police are dumb, in fact if your IQ is too high you can actually be legally barred from employment as a police officer in the United States of america. Look it up. But fuck incompetence of these Jokers continue to tickle my asshole in a negative way
I fuckin hate cops as much as the next person but people love to spout this fact, but there is literally only 1 police department ever that has been documented doing this, and it was the one police department in Connecticut.
However the court did in fact rule it was legal, yes.
But the way everyone talks about it you’d think this was some super widespread policy that many departments use. And as far as I can tell there’s only ever been the 1 example. It’s the same case that every single article about it refers to.
What if you had to guess a number between 0 and 100 and the other person (or an application) only told you if the number is bigger or smaller? That’s the form that’s usually presented to CS students and most people end up figuring it out on their own. Then the trick is knowing how to generalize it.
I’m pretty sure I was serious. I don’t know how people can be that clever. It seems simple once it’s explained, sure, but I wouldn’t be able to come up with that on my own without someone else giving me a problem that points me in that direction.
Some security camera systems have this built in. They show snapshots of various times where you choose the total period, say 24 hours. Then you glance through the snapshots that are all displayed at once on the screen and click on the last one where your bike was still there. That will then “zoom in” the timeline and show another set of snapshots, though this time within a smaller total time window. Keep clicking on the last panel with the bike, and it will soon show you the clip of the bike being stolen.
Really helpful to find out when something changed.
If you’ve got 14 billion years, a theft takes a minute, then you need 53 recursion levels of binary search to find the moment of the theft. (14 billion years can be split into about 7.3e15 1-minute segments, 53 levels of binary search allow you to search through 9e15 segments)
That means OP assumed that it’d take 1 minute to decide whether at a certain still frame the theft had already occured or not, to compute the new offset to seek to, and the time it’d take to actually seek the tape to that point.
Not an unreasonable assumption, but a very conservative estimate. Assuming the footage is on an HDD and you’ve got an automated system for binary search, I’d actually assume it’d take 5 seconds for each step, meaning finding a 1min theft on 14 billion years of footage would take 5 minutes.
According to my napkin math it would take longer than an hour if the tape was ~3.3*10^218 sec long (or three million trillion trillion… (18 trillions) …trillion years). Assuming you have only have two options to choose between but can pick which alternative in in 5 seconds (2^720) and you want to get down to a 1 minute intervall.
So i mean its not impossible to find a tape long enough though it seems unlikely that we would be so off in our estimates of the age of the universe.
The final project in my instrumentation class was to tune a PID controller for a hot/cold mixing valve. I (CS/ENG) was paired up with an engineering student and a lot of it was throwing parameters in, seeing if weird shit happened, and then turning down or up based on the result. I had a programming final and something else I was supposed to be studying for, so I just started doing a binary search with the knobs. We got the thing tuned relatively fast and my partner acted like I was a wizard.
How do you do a binary search for an open-end scale (are PID params open-end?) and three knobs at the same time when they interdepend in their influence? I need to know since i have a PID tuning on my personal projects plate
It’s been ages, but we’d done rough calculations for the three controls so we roughly knew what we needed. Our teacher was big on manually tuning instead of just using formulas since he thought just running numbers “lacked artfulness.”
So we grabbed a point and started searching around manually. I think we were just tuning the derivative portion at that point, trying to get a fast response without the system without it going chaotic and noisy.
It’s got huge amounts of applicability in many lifestyles and situations that most people never realize until the moment arrives. I once played a fun game that had you guess a number between 1 and 1 Billion with them telling you higher or lower to earn your freedom. Takes a couple of minutes at most.
Also, if I rewind to the Neolithic and I see a bunch of cavemen, sabertooth tigers and a Schwinn chained to a bike rack, I’m not going to just fast forward from there. I have other questions.
How do you solve that? I saw a solution in the comments where it says to start with numbering all the people and butting 1234 and 5678 on the see saw, then it says if they weight the same then continue and that seems to work. But if they dont weigh the same it doesnt work and it doesnt say what to do in that case.
That’s not the question. Either the scales balance, and the third is heavier or lighter, or the scales don’t balance and you get both answers, but the question is purposely framed this way
That’s easy enough to answer, but he really should work on his grammar. In that case you just do 3 groups of three, weigh two of them. If they’re even, the third group is different. Weigh 2 membres of the third group, they’ll either be even or one heavier. Weight the last member against the heavier one from step 2 to see if they’re even or not for your answer.
I’ve had a look into it, and it doesn’t work if you try to do it mathmatically. You always need more than 3 gos on the seesaw.
There is a solution in the replies to my original comment that is the actual solution, and it works every time and is much simpler than any grouping method.
It involves assigning a letter to each person and then aligning that with a grid of positions “left” or “right” or “none” on the seesaw. Over the three rounds. So, person A is on the right all three rounds person b is on the right for 2 rounds then on the left for the 3rd round.
You end up with a list of 12 patterns that do not repeat or mirror any other pattern like “LLL” “LLR” “LRR” “LR-” etc. Then you do all three rounds and compare the position the seesaw was in with those patterns.
If the seesaw was down on the left 2 times the down on the right the third time then you look for which person had that pattern in this case it was person B. So they are the one with a different weight and they were heavier.
Equally, if the opposite pattern occurred. It was down on the right 2 times, then down on the left for round, then that is the opposite pattern of person B and does not occur anywhere else, so it was person B, and they were lighter.
<span style="color:#323232;">person: A B C D E F G H I J K L
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 1: L L L L R R R R — — — -
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 2: L L R R R — — — L R L -
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 3: L R R — — L R — L L — R
</span>
Yes, I’m aware. But with 12 people you can’t simply divvy the groups in threes constantly, because if you weigh and the groups are unequal, then you don’t know in which group the different person is (yet). E.g., weighing ABCD - EFGH can tell you the different person is in IJKL if the groups are even, but if they’re uneven you don’t know in which of the other two groups the different person is.
This would be easier to parse with a monospaced font. I’m not sure how that works in lemmy so this might take an edit or two…
<span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 1: L L L L R R R R — — — -
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 2: L L R R R — — — L R L -
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">round 3: L R R — — L R — L L — R```
</span>
Oh i get it. So if in round 1 it tilted down on the right. Round 2 it was even then round 3 it tilted down on the right then it was person G and they are heavier. However if it was reversed and tilted on the left then even then left then it was still person G but they are lighter. Because that pattern only occurs once. This is brilliant. Thankyou to you and the person you corrected the formatting of.
I mean, in the era of VHS this won't work because ultimately you're fast forwarding and rewinding. So you're gonna watch it anyway. but in the digital era I thought this would be what any Police officer did?
Like... they're not even gonna spend 10 minutes on a theft?
Add comment