Sat on jury duty. We literally said not guilty because the officer was supposed to follow a process for line ups and they didn’t even do the bare minimum. They were like we got out guy
I once had a friend who was robbed of all kinds of stuff including a PS3, and that the guy was signed into his Netflix changing account profiles the very same day. I told him he can just get a tracking number by calling Playstation and that the active police officer can use it to track them. Thing is, the officer ghosted him for like 8 months despite having everything they needed to immediately find the exact location of the perpetrator actively using the stolen property.
They don’t care really. As has been my experience anyway.
I once had my car window smashed, a mix of gear taken…some was expensive, some was personal to me. I felt violated. Called the police, explained, gave S/Ns to what I could, told them exactly who did it. He didn’t give a shit. Actually made me feel like I was wasting his time. I think Seinfeld covered this…
“We’ll let you know if we find anything” “Do you ever find anything?” “No”
But oh, my reg is out of date and the plate scanner picked it up? Boom, they really kick it into gear. So that’s $130… i could just go take care of the tags immediately with a friendly warning but now don’t even want to. And in the end I end up pretty fucked.
If only they put that effort into other things I just might have gotten my linear power amps back. Props to anyone who knows that product.
I’m sure it didn’t go well. If it was somehow framed in a sycophantic way where the police were led to believe it was their idea, I’m sure it would have gone better. Wait that might not be too difficult to do.
Na. If it’s British police it’s just an excuse. All they’re there for after all these years of Tory cuts is to give you a reference number so you can make an insurance claim.
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.
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.
I thought this had to be hyperbole, so I did the math myself. I’m assuming human history is 200,000 years as google says, and we want to narrow this down to the second the bike disappeared. also that the bike instantly vanished so there’s no partially existing bike.
each operation divides the time left in half, so to get from 200k years (6.311×10^12 seconds) to 1 would take ~42.58 divisions, call it 43. even if we take a minute on average to seek and decide whether the bike is there or not it would still be less than an hour of manual sorting
hell, at 60fps it would only take another 6 divisions to narrow it down to a single frame, still under an hour
edit: to use the entire hour we’d need a couple more universes worth of video time to sort through, 36.5 billion years worth to be exact. or a measly 609 million years if we need to find that single frame at 60fps
History is about 10k years, the 200k years is mostly pre-history. People didn’t write stuff down until they invented agriculture and needed to track trade between owners, workers, etc
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.
If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault), then binary search is practically useless.
But you will see the event happen though.
It’s a matter of if you can identify who the perpetrator is or not, but at least that due diligence should be done by police, looking at the person doing the crime and see if they can be identified.
A binary search is just what it says, it’s just for searching only.
When you find that moment in time where the bike was there one moment, and then the next moment the bike’s not there, then you view at regular or even slow-mo at those few seconds of the bike in the middle of disappearing, and see the perpetrator, and hopefully can identify them.
Binary search only works on sorted data, i.e. you know which side of the mid point is pointing towards the incident. If the incident leaves no trail, you can’t know whether you can discard the left side or the right side, making it a complicated linear search at that moment.
If the incident leaves no trail, you can’t know whether you can discard the left side or the right side
There’s a moment where the bike is there, then another when its not. The whole video, either way, will either from the beginning up to the point of theft have the bike there, or NOT have the bike there from the point of theft to the end of the video. The marker is the removal of the bike from the video lens.
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.
But it didn’t, because if it did then it would fall under the second paragraph of their comment, where they said that binary search would be useful. The comment isn’t just talking about bike thefts.
The OP is, but the comment you replied to isn’t. They expanded on the original post, and said that while binary search is useful in that situation (along with many others), it would be useless in other situations.
How do you binary search for two people arriving, one punches the other, they both leave?
In the same way the OP talks about it …
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.
Instead of a bike, you look for the aftereffects of a fight happening (chairs knocked down, tables turned over, etc.). You can even look at how many people congregate around the location of the fight before and after the video as a ‘marker’ to the point of time the fight was happening/just finished.
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 movment of the fight is caught on the video. Motion sensor movement, basically.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seriously, my guy. Are you having a mental breakdown or what? You’re accusing rational people trying to correct you of being botnet responses, you’re constantly moving your goal posts and accusing everyone else of doing it, you’re being intellectually dishonest and accusing everyone else of doing it.
You are being transparently and irrationally defensive all because you can’t admit you made a mistake. 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.
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.
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’m going to skip over the earlier parts and move to the end of your comment.
Ok! That makes me feel better. If you’re just mixing it up and having fun arguing on the internet, I get it. You’ve got time and you’re having fun. That’s cool, man. It just comes off a little weird to people, I feel.
I, while I respect what you’re saying, don’t want to spend time arguing the point. If I could, I would just like to explain to you what my understanding of the situation is, and then, if you disagree, I’ll respect that.
Binary search is effective for many things. However: imagine a camera on a blank white wall that was recorded for 24 hours.
At some point during that 24 hours, two people crossed in front of the wall that was being recorded, and one punched the other and then ran out of frame, and the other person ran after them out of frame. The entire exchange was on screen for only a few seconds. The wall was completely unchanged by the encounter.
In that very particular instance, rare as it might seem, binary search will not be more efficient for locating the footage. Does that make sense?
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.
Ok, fair enough. So you understand in that unusual circumstance where the static image remains provably unchanged, it would make binary search ineffective, but I take your point: most real-world events will create a change in the static image, even if it seems minor (even in ways a human might not notice), which would then allow the effective use of binary search.
Thanks for taking a second to talk it out with me.
If you skip to after the smoke has dissipated, you cannot gather enough information to know that you need to rewind. A binary search is useless in this scenario.
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.
Maybe I have no understanding of what a binary search is. My understanding is that you check halfway through the video, see if the thing has happened yet, then skip halfway to the end if it hasn’t. Check again, skip again. When you see the cue that the event has happened, you rewind to halfway between the latest point where the event hadn’t happened yet and the earliest point when it has. Keep doing that and you can pinpoint the exact frame where the event happens in a matter of minutes.
Binary search would be largely useless in cases where you have a good chance of skipping right past the event. If the video is an hour long, and the event happens 34 minutes in and leaves a visual cue that lasts less than 11 minutes, then binary search does not find the event. At that point, watching the video fast forwarded would be the way to go, and that’s not a binary search, that’s just watching the video.
So I should correct myself: the visual cue doesn’t have to last the remainder of the video, it just needs to last until one of the points that you check. Which still makes it not useful for things that don’t leave visual cues that last more than a few minutes, because it cannot find most of those events if they happen at a random time in an hour+ video.
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.
But the vast majority of events, when humans are involved, leave long aftereffects usually. Yes, not 100% of the time, but usually.
Nobody said otherwise, you’re arguing with strawmen’
Yes, they have. They’ve used it as a reason why a binary search would not work, that the event duration would be too short to be detectable.
And that’s not a strawman, that’s making my point, that its not just the event, but the aftereffects of the event, that makes a binary search possible.
less long by AI (faster to detect changes than humans).
Many things change things. A bit of smoke in the air might have been from a gunshot that happened 10 minutes ago, or it might have been from a cigarette 15 minutes ago. Binary search relies on changes that indicate a specific thing has happened–a broken window, a bike no longer there, blood stains on the street. Anything undetectable by humans would still be useless to AIs. A bit a smoke? Could have been a gunshot 3 minutes ago, could have been a cigarette, could be fog, could be a vape. Even the things that AIs are truly useful for, like interpreting video compression artifacts, wouldn’t help, because any number of things can cause compression artifacts. How could it tell what pixels are slightly off color because of a gunshot 3 minutes ago, and what pixels are slightly off color because someone walked past the camera?
At that point, just feed the entire video to the AI and have it tell you when it sees guns or puffs of smoke or hears screams. Binary search is useless when you can just have a machine watch the entire video in one sitting over the course of five seconds and tell you when the interesting thing happens.
Anything undetectable by humans would still be useless to AIs. A bit a smoke? Could have been a gunshot 3 minutes ago, could have been a cigarette, could be fog, could be a vape.
Actually, an AI could determine the difference between those, based on shape, location, and opacity, etc.
At that point, just feed the entire video to the AI and have it tell you when it sees guns or puffs of smoke or hears screams.
Is there a point where one technique works better than another technique? Sure. I’m not arguing that. But if you’re dealing with a very long time, you’d still want to do a binary search first.
Binary search is useless when you can just have a machine watch the entire video in one sitting over the course of five seconds and tell you when the interesting thing happens.
Depends on how long that tape is, which is what was being originally discussed by the OP.
A binary search assisted by AI in determining the point in the tape where the effect happened quickly is still a very fast way of doing so (assuming the tape duration is very long), as alluded by others in other topic trees in this topic.
Actually, an AI could determine the difference between those, based on shape, location, and opacity, etc.
Lmao now I know you’re fucking with me
Yeah lemme spend three weeks training this AI on the difference between gunsmoke, cigarette smoke, vapes, and fog in this specific alley. Oh, y’all already found the killer because someone just watched the video? Well my point stands, the AI could do it faster
Once it’s trained
In another week
Oh shit, it thought that guy’s cell phone was a gun. See you in another month!
Actually, an AI could determine the difference between those, based on shape, location, and opacity, etc.
Lmao now I know you’re fucking with me
Yeah lemme spend three weeks training this AI on the difference between gunsmoke, cigarette smoke, vapes, and fog in this specific alley. Oh, y’all already found the killer because someone just watched the video? Well my point stands, the AI could do it faster
Once it’s trained
In another week
Oh shit, it thought that guy’s cell phone was a gun. See you in another month!
Um, I was being completely serious. Having AI determine shapes/opaqueness is a simple matter for it. And I’m assuming the training would already be done before the event happens, over time.
You don’t think crime forensics labs won’t be training AI to do these kind of detections going forward? Really?
(Maybe its a matter of people not truly grocking what AI will do and how it will change things, going forward. /shrug)
Having an AI search for shapes an opaqueness is still totally useless for a binary search if those semi-opaque shapes happen for 10 minutes 34 minutes into an hour long video
Again, you’d just feed the whole video to an AI, you wouldn’t have it do a binary search
Having an AI search for shapes an opaqueness is still totally useless for a binary search if those semi-opaque shapes happen for 10 minutes 34 minutes into an hour long video
Well one of those shapes would happen at the time of the event though, so it’s not useless. One of those would be a gunshot smoke, and could be flagged for review.
Again, you’d just feed the whole video to an AI, you wouldn’t have it do a binary search
One day, when computers and AI are powerful enough, this will be the answer, but even then I would like to think behind the scenes they would use a binary search to speed up the processing time.
The time of the event doesn’t necessarily coincide with any of the times that you’re checking. That’s the whole point of looking for visual cues. Again, if the event happens 34 minutes into the video, and it leaves AI detectable visual cues for 10 minutes, the AI will never find it using binary search. It will skip to 30 minutes, see nothing, skip to 45 minutes, see nothing, skip to 52:30, see nothing, skip to 56:15, see nothing, and fail at some point when it can’t divide the video further. Binary search would fail in this scenario. It’s not just useless, it’s an abject failure, and the AI was a waste of processing power when you could have scrubbed forward five minutes at a time instead. That would have found the visual cue, but would not be a binary search.
The time of the event doesn’t necessarily coincide with any of the times that you’re checking. That’s the whole point of looking for visual cues.
But one of them potentially will though. A gun firing leave smoke behind.
Even if there’s other smoke in the video, you’re looking at 5 minutes of a 24-hour video, and not scanning through 24 hours of a video manually. And an AI could use a binary search to find any moments of smoke (or not). Not saying it’s a one-size-fits-all solution, just one very important tool in a toolbox.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m exhausted talking about this topic, and so if you don’t mind, I’m just going to bail at this point.
If we’re talking about a 24 hour video, then we definitely can’t find every instance of smoke. If there isn’t any smoke exactly 12 hours into the video, then it throws away the entire first 12 hours. Any evidence that could have been found in those 12 hours is gone. A binary search throws away half of the information at a time. It super can’t locate multiple instances of something happening.
I’ve been wrong in arguments before, it feels awful. The best things to do are either address the misunderstanding in the original comment, or not engage with anyone else who feels like arguing more. One thing I miss from Reddit was being able to toggle notifications on a per-comment basis.
I’ve been wrong in arguments before, it feels awful. The best things to do are either address the misunderstanding in the original comment, or not engage with anyone else who feels like arguing more.
Well, I’m not wrong, so I don’t worry awful it from that angle. Just feel that people are not arguing/conversing in good faith.
The misunderstanding of others assuming differently than I was discussed elsewhere in the comment thread. To reiterate, I believe my assumptiion is the correct one based on how the world is, and not hypotheticals.
As far as not arguing more, it gets to a point of where some moderation should be happening, because its pretty evident at some people that people are group thinking attacking someone just for the lols if nothing else, and I say that because when I explain why I don’t think I’m wrong they don’t answer my point, but instead just insert their own new points in the conversation.
Otherwise, I feel the need to defend myself, especially when people say I’m saying things I’m not saying. “Standing up to bullies” sort of attitude. It sucks, but Humanity can be assholes sometimes.
I’d really like to stop talking about this now, I’d appreciate you not responding to this comment, unless you really feel the need to. Take care.
Not if he’s off screen. It’s only a visual cue if it’s captured by the video.
If you have a separate video of the guy falling over dead, you can use that video to get a window of time to view in the other video, but one video that captures only parts of the scene can easily leave you with no visual cues.
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.
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.
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.”
You seem to talk about different things when you say “visual clue”. Yes, there will be a small duration in the video where the event happens and maybe a short aftermath. That’s not a visual clue, that’s the thing you’re looking for. What all others mean by visual clue is a definite indicator that you can see when picking any random frame in the video that tells you if that frame is before or after the event. That allows you to exclude all other frames from your search, reducing your search range by half.
A stolen bike, a broken window, your examples that trash the place or end up with a crowd of people in the area, all leave such a visual clue. At any random frame you can check if the bike is there or not, the window is broken or not, etc.
But let’s say you have footage of the street facing CCTV and you need to find at what time the suspect left the scene (crime happened somewhere else). There’s nothing that tells you when looking at the halfway point if the suspect already passed or didn’t. You still have to look at both sides of that point in time.
The classic example for binary search is looking for a word in a dictionary. You open it halfway and see if the words there are before or after the one you’re looking for. Then you know which half of the dictionary you need to look in next. Then you use the same method for that half and so on.
But what if someone highlighted a word in the dictionary and you don’t know which word? Binary search is useless. You have to skim through the whole thing until you see it.
I believe what you stated is partially incorrect, as you don’t look at just a single frame, you compare it to the frames before and after as well, you search for pattern changes.
I stand by what I said. I don’t believe you’re seeing the whole thing (pardon the pun).
Five months later, and I’m not going down this rabbit hole again. I’ll just leave it at agree to disagree.
Even if you’re looking at a range, it still won’t tell you anything except that you found the guy or you didn’t find the guy. If you didn’t, what’s the next step? (In the find when the suspect passed in front of the camera scenario)
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.
I’m describing the vast majority of fights that happen in the public.
But the comment you replied to already addressed those fights, and bike thefts, and the vast majority of cases that you’re talking about, by saying
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.
No one is moving goalposts. 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.
In your hypothetical situation involving AI, the AI would use visual cues that are present, and so the situation is covered by the parent comment’s second paragraph. In a situation where there are no visual cues for the AI to use, it would be covered by the third paragraph. They still aren’t wrong about anything.
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.
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.
Then you should be responding to the “leaves no visual cues” part, not the “binary search is useless” part. If there WERE a situation that left no visual cues, THEN binary search WOULD be useless. It does not matter whether there ARE such situations.
No, you are either lying or wildly confused. You explicitly just stated that what you were responding to was the “binary search is useless” part. If you were responding to the “leaves no visual cues” part, you would have bolded it. You just said that what you responded to was the “binary search is useless” part. That means that logically, your argument IS that even in situations where there are no visual cues, binary search WOULD be useful, which is incorrect.
What does that have to do with a binary search If a camera has AI on it then two things. A you have a system that already would be capturing movement or motion so you already have flags that you can check which would make a binary search mostly unnecessary. and B it’s not binary search. Which is this whole discussion.
Cool you’re adding information to the question to make yourself “right” but even your comment says that’s only the vast majority of fights and also you had to clarify in public so there are edge cases where the situation still stands that binary search wouldn’t work or wouldn’t be feasible.
A solution doesn’t have to work for 100% of things for it to still be a good solution.
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.
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.
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
If you have camera footage from 4pm to 8pm with event lasting 1 minute but no changes occur to the background/foreground how exactly are you using recursion to determine which part of the footage even occurred without going through the entire film. Are you picking at random?
The way you’re describing AI is not binary search and so it can’t be used in this example. Also most public cameras are not 8K cameras they don’t contain a lot of detail, so the argument that they could catch something subtle kinda gets blown out of the water. You can’t just use AI as a cop out for not understanding how function behaves or works
Suppose the objective is to review highway cam footage of the day to verify that a (non-speeding) car with a particular license plate drove past the area / used this route. The route is used 24/7 by many identical cars throughout the day and night, and that our target car is one such identical car, with the only difference being the license plate. We know on average cars that drive past this camera only appear for 3 seconds on the footage. How can binary search be used to find the car within 24 hours of footage, if the target car only appears for 3 seconds within the 24 hour video?
You didn’t get what was talked about here. Re-read the topmost parent comment.
I was responding to this …
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.
Maybe I’m not understanding both arguments here but I’d like to understand. I’ve had to review footage of a vending machine being shaken to release drinks.
You have no before or after visual clue as to when the event took place. The only indication is when you physically see it happening. The same could be said for an assault. If nothing is changed in the before or after static still how can you pinpoint the incident?
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.
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.
Yes, but, as you noted in an earlier post, that isn’t what you’re responding to. The point of the post you stated you are responding to is: if an event occurs that leaves no change to the visual context before and after the occurrence, then binary search is ineffective.
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.”
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
I never said they work 100% of the time. I said they work most of the time, which is a true statement.
That’s also what the comment you claim to disagree with said, so why are you even arguing?
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.
Right. And when that happens, it’s covered by the second paragraph of the parent comment:
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.
Situations where binary searches aren’t useful are covered in the third paragraph of the comment:
If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault), then binary search is practically useless.
You’ve claimed that you disagree with this, but have yet to explain why you disagree beyond saying that there would be visual cues. Except that they’ve already said that binary searches work in situations that leave visual cues. You haven’t explained how a binary search can work in situations that leave no visual cues except by claiming they they would,except if they do, then the person you claim to disagree with has already said that binary searches are useful.
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.
Let’s use the example of a bike theft. We enter into evidence a 4-hour security cam video that shows the thief with the bike.
Scenario A: The camera can directly see the bike rack, and the bike in question is visible at the beginning of the video, and not visible at the end. Somewhere in this 4-hour video, someone walks up to the bike and takes it out of the bike rack. You can use a binary search to find the moment that happens in this video because you can pick a frame and say “Ah, this was before the theft; the bike is still there” or “ah, this was after the theft; the bike is gone.”
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 because the door looks the same at the beginning or end of the video. A simple binary search won’t work here because the door looks the same before and after.
Nah, they’re just gonna say you can use AI or something, as a retroactive explanation for what they obviously weren’t talking about in their original comment. They’re a troll; they’re not going to budge.
Edit: Case in point. They’re now at the level of mental gymnastics that they’re saying part of their original response implied that they were talking about the capabilities of AI at some point in the future.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You would have to be confident that said change in environment was done by the bike thief. What if that knocked over trash can was done by some unrelated bored teenager twenty minutes after the bike was stolen?
It might be better to use some software to remove any frame of video that is identical to the one before it, no motion is taking place, etc. then manually watch the much shorter video of “only when stuff happens.”
You would have to be confident that said change in environment was done by the bike thief.
Well, the change would happen, the human will be noticed, and then they can watch that moment in time on the tape to see who did it. The binary search would be about shortening what portions of the video tape a human/AI would have to review manually.
It might be better to use some software to remove any frame of video that is identical to the one before it, no motion is taking place, etc. then manually watch the much shorter video of “only when stuff happens.”
So, I hope you’re not under the impression that I’m advocating binary search as the ONLY way of doing a search. I’m just staying within the confines of the subject as brought up by the OP, which was about binary searches.
At the end of the day its about detecting the change/aftereffect, and not the search inandof itself. A binary search just helps you narrow down the video you have to watch manually, especially when there’s allot of it to review.
I’m just a random guy stumbling across this thread hours after the fact. I want to say that after reading many of these comments. I feel like I’m starting to get a handle on what your position is. You aren’t wrong, but you are communicating your idea horribly.
Your position seems to be “Thankfully, many crimes do leave behind lasting visual cues, so you can still do a binary search for those situations if you are clever about what to look for.”
What you’ve actually been communicating is that “If there really was no lasting visual cue, then just find a lasting visual cue anyway, then do a binary search on that and it’ll work!” - It’s all about how you choose to present, order, and emphasize your comments. Your message is more than just the words you type. I hope this message helps clarify the debate and confusion for you and anyone else who stumbles upon this long chain.
I appreciate you responding kindly, and your thoughts, thank you.
What you’ve actually been communicating is that “If there really was no lasting visual cue, then just find a lasting visual cue anyway, then do a binary search on that and it’ll work!
What I’ve been attempting to communicate, and I think have been expressing that, is that “no lasting visual cue” is not right (most of the time), its incorrect, and that there’s (almost) always a visual cue, and that you can do the binary search because there is. Not maybe, but there is, lasting visual cues (most of the time).
I disagreed with the point being asserted by the comment I initially replied to. I think people are getting hung up on my very initial comment, where I implied instead of being explicive, thinking my assumption was a well known one, just based on how I see the world operate (humans are messy). But how those replied to me seem that its not well known (or just not realized).
In hindsight, I should be more explicive, but that’s a horrible way to have to communicate, like if I have to pass every comment through a lawyer before posting it. You’d think people instead of instantly attacking would just have a conversation about try to understand my assumption. That didn’t come up until WAY later in the conversation tree, and only by a single person. There was way too many comments just attacking me with every hypothetical possiblity just to try and prove me wrong, and that, was wrong of them to do. Its not conversational, its bad group think.
Your message is more than just the words you type.
I was just telling my wife that the other day, its how you say that matters as much as what you say. I’m actually a well spoken person (on a good day at least). I’m honestly going to blame some of the confusion not on me, but on others with their hypotheticals, and confluencing how you scan a video, with how you search for sections of a video to scan, as adding to the confusion.
I hope this message helps clarify the debate and confusion for you and anyone else who stumbles upon this long chain.
Well, I think (saying this in 3rd person) what null was trying to do (gatekeeping censorship by telling others to not read my comments and calling me a troll) is really, really wrong. and bad for Lemmy, and I would have liked to have seen more people call him out on it, but instead he was rewarded with up votes. I truly don’t believe I deserved that, or that ANYBODY deserves that, and that his comment should be moderated.
And only because you mentioned it, I don’t feel confused, I feel anger. Anger over how I’ve been treated. It was just supposed to be a friendly conversation, expressing a counterpoint, and people responded by doing things they would not do in public to another’s face.
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.
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.