Programmer Humor

19511 readers

335 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police (startrek.website)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

180 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then you missed the point of this conversation

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

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

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

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