CosmicCleric

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

You have no before or after visual clue as to when the event took place.

That wouldn’t necessarily be true. If you shook it hard enough to move the contents inside the vending machine and the vending machine had a glass front then you would have a static change that would last from the time the event happened until a human being came to work on the machine. That change would be detectable.

Or from the shaking the vending machine is moved an inch forward and an inch to the left. That change would be detectable.

Everyone arguing against me is trying to focus the point that the event is such a short duration that it’s not detectable afterwards, and what I’ve been arguing the whole time and that people keep ignoring is that most of the time after an event happens that the environment around the event changes, and it’s detectable afterwards.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year 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.

Are you advocating that a binary search never works?

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.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Scenario B: The camera can’t directly see the bike rack, but can see the doorway you have to walk through to get to the bike rack. So somewhere in 4 hours of doorway footage, someone walks through the door, then a short time later walks back through the door with the bike. A binary search won’t help here

I never said it works 100% of the time. This that it would work most of the time. And I make that statement based on the fact that usually the environment changes around the event, or the event happens long enough to be detectable, if not by humans, then by AI.

In all of my comments I’m assuming that that focal point of the crime is visible.

But even if it wasn’t, if the person stealing the bike knocks over a trash can while doing it and that’s in the camera view it would still be useable. Or if a crowd congregates around the focus point and looks around for the bike, that would also make a binary search feasible.

That’s always just been my point, that a binary surgery more often than not works because most times the environment around the event changes in some way, from subtle to extreme.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I’ve written binary searches before.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I’m not trolling, and I stand by what I said.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

And 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.

CosmicCleric, 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.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 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 for a binary search.

And honestly, the thing everybody is arguing with me against, is that they are advocating that there would be a prestine before and after static image around an event, making binary searches not possible. Truly? That would be excessively rare in my eyes, reality usually doesn’t work like that.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 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, in detail, which justified the point I was making.

You can’t change them just because you want to win an Internet point.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

No I’m not. Your explanations do 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.

I disagree. I stand by what I’ve said.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I’m not lying. I stand by what I’ve said.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Looking for your point of flesh now too, eh? Lemmy is a really great place to have conversations w/o toxicity or gang-gatekeeping.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Wow, ok, I guess my next line would be then …

NO U!!1!!!

We done?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Have a nice day.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

To each their own. :p

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

It’s interesting to see how you as the only person repeatedly seem to be missing the point. And instead of admitting that you made a mistake you dig deeper and deeper.

Repeating your point, because its being misrepresented, is not digging deeper, its attempting to correct the record.

At this point its painfully obvious that we’re not going to agree, so how about we just agree to disagree, and move on?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

That’s not relevant.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Or is it “Name checks out”?

I’m never quite sure how to end these “who gets the last word” arguments.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

If it’s not “for the duration of the rest of the video,” then binary search would be useless

That’s not true. It only has to be long enough to be detectable, by landing on a strip of video that it exists on. It’ll be harder, definately, but still doable.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

You’ve claimed that you disagree with this, but have yet to explain why you disagree beyond saying that there would be visual cues.

I have explained it, multiple times. I disagree that there would not be visual clues most of the time. I can’t prove a negative I don’t belleve in, to me its a false scenario that doesn’t (mostly) happen. In fact, the whole point of my very first comment was to rebut implicitly the ‘no visual clues’ clause.

Each comment is not atomic, on its own, its part of an overall conversation being had. To try and do so otherwise is just to play “gotcha” and is intellectually dishonest.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Whatever floats your boat.

We done?

CosmicCleric, 1 year 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.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

So, how long are we going to do this?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I would just be repeating myself at this point, to respond. Lets just leave it at agree to disagree.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

When you see the cue that the event has happened, you rewind

The event has happened, or the aftereffects that the event happened. That is my point, the aftereffects matter as much as the event itself. As long as the ‘after’ looks different than the ‘before’ for any reason, that is a marker to give you an indication on which way to go, rewind, or advance.

And yes, either the effect or the aftereffects has to last long enough to be noticed by humans, less long by AI (faster to detect changes than humans). But the vast majority of events, when humans are involved, leave long aftereffects usually. Yes, not 100% of the time, but usually.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

How long are we going to do this?