Yeah, pigs don’t like to be corrected. Or made to look like they don’t know what they’re doing.
Fun fact. Cops on average have lower IQ and often fail literacy tests. Furthermore it appears that critical thinking is discouraged in the job, with candidates being selected who lack critical thinking abilities over those that have them.
We need to have a chat about your definition of “fun”.
Certain departments specifically have IQ tests, in order to ensure you aren’t smart enough to easily get a better job elsewhere.
This internet myth has got to die. ONE case in ONE department, a quarter century ago, does not mean it’s a practice.
deleted by creator
Because the 1999 story is the origin of this talk.
Anyone got a non-paywalled link?
It sounds like this could be applied to the military too
The military doesn’t actively exclude smarter people. However they 100% prey on people who are less educated
This argument did not go well
You can’t convince people to do their job with logic when they just don’t want to do their job. After minorities, the thing cops hate most is doing their job.
WRONG! After minorities, it’s poor people. Then doing their job. :P
Come on, don’t disparage our hard-working Boys in blue. Without police who’s going to come to your house to take notes about the crime that you have sufficient evidence to prove, and even have a likely suspect for, and then never follow up?
Removed by mod
I assume he doesn’t have access to it. He just knows there’s a camera pointing at the place where his bike was stolen, and that the police have access to the footage.
when they just don’t want to do their job.
It might also be a matter of getting a directive from their management not the care, because there’s not enough cops to go around for the ‘important’ stuff.
They don’t want to waste their limited time for simple property theft, which is ironic considering that’s what police are supposed to be doing (stopping theft).
The answer would be then to hire more police, but unfortunately that would mean higher taxes for the citizenry, and that seems to be a hard glass ceiling.
Wrong
The police exists to protect the status quo. Try overthrowing any immoral law or legally but immoral behavior and you’ll see how efficiently they move about.
Before handing out life advice maybe try it IRL and see how it goes. It’s kinda fun.
I tried being born rich but it didn’t work this time around. Maybe next re incarnation?
No, the police just don’t want to do any work. In my hometown you can’t get the police to do shit unless you are a black man who “fits the description” or “smells like weee” then they will gladly try to make your death look as much your fault as possible.
More police wouldn’t cost more money if they stopped buying tanks.
This didn’t go down well.
IT consulting pro-tip: Customers would rather pay for your time and expertise, than be made to feel stupid that they didn’t think of something so simple themselves.
After working in desktop support for a year after college, I realized that people just wanted their problem solved and to not feel frustrated. That realization made my job immensely easier because I pivoted from copying a file in 30 seconds and walking away to talking to them a little bit and letting them feel good after we were done. My ticket closing speed slowed down a little but people felt better and I consistently got positive feedback.
Dude same here. I usually say stuff along the lines of ‘yea it took me forever the first time to figure it out’ or ‘it’s a common issue that a lot of people have, I’ll get it sorted in a sec for you no problem’. Make it seem like they’re not stupid, regardless of the truth and then fix it, keeps em happy and more willing to cooperate with you as well.
I also talk through what I’m doing and if they show interest I’ll teach them so they can fix it in the future, ‘ah I’ve seen this before, took me like a hour to figure it out on my computer, for me it was a chrome update that broke how downloaded files open. Here let me right click the file, and go to open with, we hit Adobe pdf and check the always open with this program button, that should do it let’s test it out. OK seems like its good to go. Let me know if you have any more issues’. If they don’t show interest then it’s no problem.
Are you my kindred spirit!? :P Thats almost exactly what I do too!
My favourite is when someone apologies for not knowing something or having dumb questions. Apart from “there is never a dumb question” because there usually isn’t, I typically respond with “if everyone already knew how to do everything, I’d be out of a job” which always seems to go down well.
Some of my favorite help desk moments are those times you get to a be teacher for someone that’s genuinely listening and happy to learn.
When I started in support 15 years ago my boss said: “First you solve the person, then you solve the problem”.
He was a good dude.
Same story here, actually. I cut my teeth on internet telephony (modems) support for an ISP. People would call up furious about not being able to connect. I learned that chatting people up during a long Windows reboot did a lot to humanize their struggle and get them to calm down and loosen up. First few times were organic, then I started looking for pretenses to do this, just to bring the temperature down for the rest of the call.
Call centers tell you to empathize but that’s not something you can teach. You can either do it or you can’t. So they give those terrible scripts, and then some of them require you to speak the scripted lines, even when you know all it does is piss the caller off.
No hears that scripted pablum at the start of call and thinks it’s genuine. No one. “I’m sorry to hear your having issues sir, but I’ll be happy to assist you.” genuinely comes off condescending at this point. They know you know it’s scripted, they know you know the representative has to say it, but they make them do it anyway.
Here’s what I found doing ISP call center work, and it worked virtually every single time: imply through tone and pointed comments you’re as frustrated as the called with how shitty the service and the hardware is. They’re never prepared for it, it always catches their anger off guard.
Don’t outright say “Yeah, Cox is absolute dog shit, and that POS gateway we make you pay for isn’t worth the cost of the the technician we’re sending out to ‘fix’ it.” You’ll get in trouble for that.
But if you’re careful and creative, you can make them appreciate you think that
Just yesterday, I was helping this manager set up a new system of ticket line (the kind where you get a ticket number and wait for it to be called in a panel). He complained that they didn’t have a proper printer just for these tickets, so he made the tickets in excel and printed them. To the right of the number, someone would mark the service, from a list of 6.
“Why not use a single letter prefix and print different piles of passwords? (A01, A02, A03; B01, B02, etc)”
That’ll use too much paper. We’ll also need more tickets than before
“That will use less paper, you can print 2 tickets using the same space. Also, the amount of tickets always depends on the number of people that show up, but you’ll have a better idea of which service is being needed each day”
Mr manager didn’t like the idea and moved on to another problem.
Eh, it’s less intuitive than you might think, as someone who already knows how to do it.
I once had to explain this process to a software engineer who was quite senior to me. The guy wasn’t any idiot, he was a pretty competent engineer, he just didn’t know this trick.
The cops might even already know how to do it, they just don’t want to, because they’re cops.
I thought this had to be hyperbole, so I did the math myself. I’m assuming human history is 200,000 years as google says, and we want to narrow this down to the second the bike disappeared. also that the bike instantly vanished so there’s no partially existing bike.
each operation divides the time left in half, so to get from 200k years (6.311×10^12 seconds) to 1 would take ~42.58 divisions, call it 43. even if we take a minute on average to seek and decide whether the bike is there or not it would still be less than an hour of manual sorting
hell, at 60fps it would only take another 6 divisions to narrow it down to a single frame, still under an hour
edit: to use the entire hour we’d need a couple more universes worth of video time to sort through, 36.5 billion years worth to be exact. or a measly 609 million years if we need to find that single frame at 60fps
I regularly bisect commits in the range of 200k (on the low end) for finding causes of bugs. It takes me minutes. Pretty crazy
Lemmy learns exponential math.
Mostly joking, thanks for doing the math.
Combine AI image/visual-pattern recognition and quantum computing, and this search could be completed before it was even started.
We can go deeper!
Just watch at 3X!
Ever heard of a logarithm? If you haven’t, you just reinvented it.
Also, your math is wrong: log base 2 of 200,000 is ~18
You did 200k years. You need to do 200k years as seconds (the 6.311e12 they mentioned). Their math is right.
Not sure why you’re acting like they claimed to invent the logarithm, either…
This method will take forever to find the exact moment, said Officer Zeno.
I love you for that joke.
This post just shows that the police rarely if ever review any video as this method would’ve been learned as a result of repeatedly reviewing video.
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.
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.
I’ve written binary searches before.
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.
Police try to understand anything challenge (100% impossible) (gone sexual) (gone violent)
We just give all the tools to solve crimes to people who have no idea how to use them, no biggie.
*have a perverse incentive to not know how to use them or to know things about their job generally.
Sat on jury duty. We literally said not guilty because the officer was supposed to follow a process for line ups and they didn’t even do the bare minimum. They were like we got out guy
I’m a little surprised the police didn’t already know about that method. Seems like they’d encounter enough CCTV footage that’d it’d be standard training.
I once again overestimate the training levels of the police.
They probably do know. They just aren’t meant for protecting your personal property
Right.
What they really want to say is “We aren’t interested in investigating your personal theft. Things get stolen all the time and we really can’t be bothered. You are not important to us.”
But they can’t say that, so they instead throw out some excuse that puts the onus back on the other person.
They can, and do, say that.
Edit: just without the you’re not important to us part.
I dunno. “Don’t attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.” I can totally believe that the average police officer has not thought this through. “5 hours of footage! We don’t have 5 hours to look for one bike.”
I imagine it’s utilized in more “serious” investigations and they just can’t be arsed for theft.
In the US most their training involves how to be more aggressive veiled as training to be assertive.
It’s a somewhat narrow situation. You won’t always have the object of interest in plain view of a camera. What if it’s behind a door? Well now you do have to scrub through all the footage
“This argument didn’t go down well.”
🤣🤣🤣 LMAO
What an awesome punchline, should have been on its own line for more impact.
I’m sure it didn’t go well. If it was somehow framed in a sycophantic way where the police were led to believe it was their idea, I’m sure it would have gone better. Wait that might not be too difficult to do.
You just have to say there was a weird technique the Nazi’s liked to use.
Na. If it’s British police it’s just an excuse. All they’re there for after all these years of Tory cuts is to give you a reference number so you can make an insurance claim.
When troubleshooting physical systems, it’s called half-splitting
https://www.ecmweb.com/maintenance-repair-operations/article/20889049/the-beauty-of-halfsplitting
This is fault finding 101 for fire alarm systems.
Jesus fucking Christ, I know police are dumb, in fact if your IQ is too high you can actually be legally barred from employment as a police officer in the United States of america. Look it up. But fuck incompetence of these Jokers continue to tickle my asshole in a negative way
I fuckin hate cops as much as the next person but people love to spout this fact, but there is literally only 1 police department ever that has been documented doing this, and it was the one police department in Connecticut.
However the court did in fact rule it was legal, yes.
But the way everyone talks about it you’d think this was some super widespread policy that many departments use. And as far as I can tell there’s only ever been the 1 example. It’s the same case that every single article about it refers to.
I did look it up and there is only 1 case from 2000 that set the high bar at 125. it’s not really representative of the whole.
Oh yea this is how I managed to convince our building management company to identify bicycle thieves in our communal garage.
Sounds about right. Cops have low iqs
Removed by mod
No, I’ve been in this situation as a victim. My bike was stolen and they said it would take hours to search the CCTV. I told them about binary search, they didn’t understand.
Yeah, seriously. What is even the context of this? We have no idea. The cops might have been like “We need a warrant to look at that footage you idiot.”
Whoever owns the camera presumably has an interest in reducing/solving crime in the area (why else have cameras?), so they would likely be happy to make the footage available to police if asked nicely, with no warrant required.
Yeah, in general, but not necessarily in that circumstance. A lot of time talking to tech people (I’m a softwar engineer) they can can be smug about this while leaving out important context.
