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.
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?
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.
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?