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.
But you will see the event happen though.
Not with a binary search.
Edit: just collapse this thread and move on. Cosmic Cleric is an obvious troll.
Well now I HAD to read the thread
What an absolute weirdo.
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.
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.
They never said "most of the time." They only brought up two categories of events: those that leave lasting visual cues, and those that don't.
I would just be repeating myself at this point, to respond. Lets just leave it at agree to disagree.
But you will see the event happen though.
Not with a binary search.
Yes you will.
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.
You didn't get what was talked about here. Re-read the topmost parent comment.
How do you binary search for two people arriving, one punches the other, they both leave?
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 moment of the fight is caught on the video with activity/movement. Motion sensor movement, basically.
You are seriously confused. OP specifically said that you're fucked if there is no visual cue.
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.
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.
...well offscreen... wow
If its all offscreen, then WTF are we bothing to talk about?
Is this on purpose?
The shooter is on screen the victim is not.
This is on purpose isn't it. You're fucking with me.
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."
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.
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.
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
2 guys enter one guy punches the other guy they both leave. Nothing is moved no blood was created,
you could not use a binary search effectively to duduce when it occurred.
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.
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
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.
Pretty good trolling, not gonna lie.
Not trolling at all.
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.
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.
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 about this hypothetical scenario:
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 either don't know what binary search is or you completely missed the context of this conversation
You either don’t know what binary search is or you completely missed the context of this conversation
I'm a computer programmer. I know exactly what a binary search is. I've written binary searches before.
The search is to get you to the point where you can watch the video to see the crime happening, in hopes of indentifying the perpretrator.
Then you missed the point of this conversation
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.
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?
Looking for your point of flesh now too, eh? Lemmy is a really great place to have conversations w/o toxicity or gang-gatekeeping.
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.
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 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.
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 comment isn’t just talking about bike thefts.
The OP is, as well as binary searches. Both are being discussed.
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.
That doesn't apply to the comment you replied to.
Yes, it does...
But you will see the event happen though.
Not with a binary search.
Yes you will.
If the event lasts only a moment and leaves no visual cue (e.g. an assault).
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.
This is the explanation that CosmicCleric needs in order to understand binary search.
Because as it is, (s)he’s failing abysmally at demonstrating any understanding whatsoever of that subject.
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.
I'm not trolling, and I stand by what I said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not with a binary search.
Edit: just collapse this thread and move on. Cosmic Cleric is an obvious troll.
Well now I HAD to read the thread
What an absolute weirdo.
Screw you, and your gatekeeping censoring.
I replied, saying the comment is not correct, and I gave reasons why, which are valid reasons.
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.
That's also what the comment you claim to disagree with said, so why are you even arguing?
Right. And when that happens, it's covered by the second paragraph of the parent comment:
Situations where binary searches aren't useful are covered in the third paragraph of the comment:
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.
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.
They never said "most of the time." They only brought up two categories of events: those that leave lasting visual cues, and those that don't.
I would just be repeating myself at this point, to respond. Lets just leave it at agree to disagree.
Yes you will.
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.
You didn't get what was talked about here. Re-read the topmost parent comment.
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 ...
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 moment of the fight is caught on the video with activity/movement. Motion sensor movement, basically.
You are seriously confused. OP specifically said that you're fucked if there is no visual cue.
And you are seriously trying to kill the messenger.
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?
The person dropping to the ground dead would be the visual cue.
...well offscreen... wow
If its all offscreen, then WTF are we bothing to talk about?
Is this on purpose?
The shooter is on screen the victim is not.
This is on purpose isn't it. You're fucking with me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
2 guys enter one guy punches the other guy they both leave. Nothing is moved no blood was created,
you could not use a binary search effectively to duduce when it occurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I've written binary searches before. I understand how they work.
Pretty good trolling, not gonna lie.
Not trolling at all.
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
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.
Just repeating myself at this point, but I was responding to this (the bolded part) …
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.
I did, by disagreeing with that statement, and listing reasons why.
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 about this hypothetical scenario:
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?
I was responding to this ...
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?
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 either don't know what binary search is or you completely missed the context of this conversation
I'm a computer programmer. I know exactly what a binary search is. I've written binary searches before.
The search is to get you to the point where you can watch the video to see the crime happening, in hopes of indentifying the perpretrator.
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...
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."
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.
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?
Looking for your point of flesh now too, eh? Lemmy is a really great place to have conversations w/o toxicity or gang-gatekeeping.
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.
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.
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.
And my point is that the DID leave a clue that a binary search would pick up on, the disappearance of the bike.
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, as well as binary searches. Both are being discussed.
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.
That doesn't apply to the comment you replied to.
Yes, it does...
How?
Yes.
Yes to what?
Exactly.
Better luck next time!
Time does not need luck.
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.
This is the explanation that CosmicCleric needs in order to understand binary search.
Because as it is, (s)he’s failing abysmally at demonstrating any understanding whatsoever of that subject.
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.
I'm not trolling, and I stand by what I said.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I've written binary searches before.
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
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.