CosmicCleric

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

You are seriously confused.

And you are seriously trying to kill the messenger.

OP specifically said that you’re fucked if there is no visual cue.

And I’m saying there’s ALWAYS a visual clue/cue, always. Either the bike is there one minute and gone another, or a fight breaks out and trashes the place from the fight. In the vast amount of cases, there’s always a visual difference.

And in this case we’re talking specifically about a bike, going missing.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Your adding things that would allow a binary search work, but the question was in a situation where the only evidence is the conflict itself

I’m describing the vast majority of fights that happen in the public. Also, you’re trying to move the goalposts by focusing on a fight, when the discussion is about the theft of a bike.

Edit: One thing we didn’t even mention, AI can also be used these days to notice subtle changes in the video. If a video is a static image of an alley, then two people walk in the alley and fight, even though they leave no traces behind, that moment of the fight is caught on the video with activity/movement. Motion sensor movement, basically.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Then you missed the point of this conversation

You’re being intellectually dishonest, in an attempt to kill the message.

This is what was said in the origional OP pic…

You don’t watch the whole thing, he said. You use a binary search. You fast forward to halfway, see if the bike is there and, if it is, zoom to three quarters of the way through. But if it wasn’t there at the halfway mark, you rewind to a quarter of the way though. Its very quick. In fact, he had pointed out, if the CCTV footage stretched back to the dawn of humanity it would probably have taken an hour to find the moment of theft.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Absolutely not true. Guy walks bye and shoots someone well offscreen. Momentary action with no visual cue before or after. Why are you arguing this useless point?

The person dropping to the ground dead would be the visual cue.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

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.

Last time I checked, I’m allow to disagree with a comment someone made, and argue the opposite. Just because they say ‘no visual cue’ does not mean that is no visual cue.

You can’t say that you can simply look for visual cues when the other person specified that there were none.

Why, because you say so? Yes, I can. Of course I can.

Its called “disagreeing” with what the other person is speaking of, and countering. Its a discussion.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Yes, but, as you noted in an earlier post, that isn’t what you’re responding to.

I keep saying what I’m responding to, but you’re trying to change the narrative of what I’m responding, to as a debate tactic.

Someone uses a debate tactic of mentioning an “one off” and then directing their whole conversation to that one singular point is not intellectually honest in the whole conversation being had.

The fact that you’re wasting this much time trying to defend such a simple error is confusing. The reasonable response is, “oh, yes, in that particular case, binary search is ineffective.”

And you don’t think I can’t tell when a bot network is using what I’ve said back to me for training their AI, and then repeating it right back at me?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Yes.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Exactly.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Do you.

You do you too, as well.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

because they are talking about a hypothetical situation where no visual cues are left.

No, I am not. I’m disagreeing with that, and my comments are stating as much. I’m allowed to disagree with what someone is saying.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

If its all offscreen, then WTF are we bothing to talk about?

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

but by telling them that you simply have to look for the cues from the hypothetical event that didn’t leave any.

And my point is that the DID leave a clue that a binary search would pick up on, the disappearance of the bike.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Time does not need luck.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

The parent comment said that binary search is useful in situations like bike thefts where visual cues are present, and not useful in situations where visual cues are not present.

Just repeating myself at this point, but I was responding to this (the bolded part) …

Part of my job is to review security footage for reported incidents.

If there is a long-lasting visual cue that the event has or has not happened yet (e.g. a window is either broken or not), then a binary search is very useful.

If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault), then binary search is practically useless.

I disagree with the “leaves no visual cue” part, as I’ve commented on. There’s ALWAYS something caught on the video to help determine things. Maybe not enough, but never nothing.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Then you should be responding to the “leaves no visual cues” part, not the “binary search is useless” part.

I did, by disagreeing with that statement, and listing reasons why.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

The comment isn’t just talking about bike thefts.

The OP is, as well as binary searches. Both are being discussed.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Edit: just collapse this thread and move on. Cosmic Cleric is an obvious troll.

Screw you, and your gatekeeping censoring.

I replied, saying the comment is not correct, and I gave reasons why, which are valid reasons.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

This is on purpose isn’t it. You’re fucking with me.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that the guy walking by was off screen, and the person on screen was shot, since the focus of the conversation was about binary search based on what’s on the video.

Guy walks bye and shoots someone well offscreen.

In that case the shooter, walking up and then holding up a gun and pulling the trigger would be the marker, as well as the puff of smoke, for the binary search, which could be done with AI, if not human eyes.

Also they would know the approximate time of death, so they can use that to extrapolate a range on the video that they need to binary search on. I’m pretty sure this is normal police work that I’m describing at this point.

Having said that, that’s one hell of a hypothetical you made there. At some point you could definitely come up with an example of when a binary search wouldn’t work, but not based on what the OP was discussing, or what others were discussing about two people having a fight on camera.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

What does that have to do with a binary search If a camera has AI on

You can have a AI do the actual binary search as described by the OP in his comment pic. Doesn’t have to be a human being that does it, but the process would be done the same way by either.

My mentioning motion detection is just that an AI would be able to detect the moment of change in the video, the focus point more readily than a human being, is all.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Cool you’re adding information to the question to make yourself “right”

No, I’m not. Within the moment I’m creating a comment I might save and then edit, because in the past I lost whole comments when I switch tabs in my browser. But when I’m done and hit that save I’m done, and then a few cases when I’m not I add an “Edit:” to it.

but even your comment says that’s only the vast majority of fights and also you had to clarify in public

Well most fights are in public, if a public camera is recording it. If a fight is private then it’s probably not being done where a camera is.

so there are edge cases where the situation still stands that binary search wouldn’t work or wouldn’t be feasible.

The only edge case I could think of would be if something happens in a split second and then the scene is static again, the same before and after that.

But even then if you’re talking about a static scene on the camera AI would probably be able to catch that split second change happening, so binary searching can still be done.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Depends on how long the smoke remains in the air.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

I have a feeling you just don’t understand how a binary search functions even with AI you wouldn’t be using a binary search at that point

I’ve written binary searches before. I understand how they work.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Not trolling at all.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

Your reasons for why they were incorrect about a binary search being useless in situations that don’t leave visual cues is that you can simply look for the visual cues lmao, that’s not valid at all

I never said they work 100% of the time. I said they work most of the time, which is a true statement.

An event happens in time, that event has a duration, if you can detect that duration then a binary search works perfectly fine.

And even after the duration most times events change the environment around them, which stay statically changed, and are detectable.

So much work to try to Kill the Messenger. Maybe organizations don’t want people to think they work so people won’t demand that they be used, causing more work for them.

CosmicCleric, 1 year ago

You are trying really hard for some reason to fit a binary search into a discussion about a situation where it clearly does not belong. Very weird but very passionate I applaud you.

The actual/origiinal OP talks about a binary search.

Changing the focal point of discussion to fit your narration is not intellectually honest.

You’re trying to change the discussion focus point to kill the messenger.