I find your reasonable and informed comment insulting.

“Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.”

deleted by creator

He would prefer to think it’s just the media reporting that a sizeable percentage of the country not only disagrees with him but would probably smile as the person you’re responding to was jailed or harmed.

Can’t totally blame him. “OMG u fuktard itz tthu mediaz making cheeto poplar!!1!” is much easier to deal with than reckoning with the fact that a) he was elected once, and b) based on current polling, he’s likely to be elected again.

It’s quite literally the same problem of the right, just reversed. The media are the problem, let’s not look at the reality that is quite apparent all around us because it’s scary.

Read the actual study. And also, like… look around you, if/when you go outside, and actually pay attention. Have you not noticed?

I love this post. Thanks. 🥰

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.

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?

deleted by creator

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.

deleted by creator

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.”

Damn. Sorry to hear that.

If you don’t like it, don’t pay for it. What’s the problem here? I don’t get why everyone gets so pissy about it.

Hard tl;dr from me, dawg

One might also hyphenate compound nouns. Depending on context, “two gun-kids” could be correct–though it seems unlikely.

Also, in this case you should use e.g. (not i.e.). No big deal though, I knew what you meant.

No shit. I was explaining to the person that thinks it should be “6th grade-levels” that would be even more nonsensical and grammatically incorrect.

For someone that seems to be critical of writing errors, you’re shockingly bad at reading comprehension. All you are doing is quite literally repeating the sentiment of the initial comment in this thread.

It’s not that hard.

Regarding the portion size, if you were receiving these dishes in a fine-dining establishment, this would be a single course in a multi-course meal. Depending on the amount of courses, you might not even finish this. That’s why you’ll sometimes see dishes where you’re thinking “you’d need 11 more plates of this to actually feed someone.”

Well… that’s because it would, in fact, be part of a 12-course meal. 😊

This one would likely be part of a three or five-course meal, in my estimation. And of course at home, you usually eat the nice plate and then make a second plate with less concern for presentation. Or like I do when I have a dinner party: every guest gets elegant presentation; for myself, I blend up the food, pour it into a dog bowl, and eat it with a soup ladle at the stove. 🤣

Drrrrrraaamaaaaaaa.

It did bother me too lol. But, it is only noticeable because the dish is so carefully composed. If it was slapped together, it wouldn’t stand out.