Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
399 comments

  • 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.

            • 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 disagree. I stand by what I've said.

399 comments