Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#31

Post by Macha »

dmitrygr wrote: post #13
parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

You completely totally and absolutely missed the point. It is about moderation, and rules there are usually MORE vague than "no vehicles," they are usually things like "no hateful language," which is so vague, that "no vehicles" is beginning to look pretty cut-and-dry by comparison

Is it? It seems there's a clear majority that vehicle = operational motor vehicle. The only two that are even close to 50/50nare the non functioning memorial tank, and the bicycle. I guess that shows a disagreement between those assuming functioning is a requirement, and those reading into the intent (which is devices operating at human scale in pedestrian spaces capable of achieving a speed that would cause injury). But neither of those interpretations are surprising

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#33

Post by aleph_minus_one »

parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

> I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is.

Exactly. I being a non-native English speaker, just to be sure, looked up in a dictionary: the most common German translation of "vehicle" is "Fahrzeug".

Of course, as it is quite common, there do exist laws in Germany

> https://gesetze.io/definitionen/fahrzeug-f9r8

what is a "Fahrzeug" and what is not, and also a German Wikipedia article that goes quite deeply into this topic:

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrzeug

Just to bring up a linguistic point (it is far more common in German than in English to carefully analyze words if subtle parts of the meaning are to be cleared up): actually, one could argue (contrary to the Wikipedia article) that "Fahrzeug" comes from "fahren" (to drive); thus a "Flugzeug" (airplane) is not a Fahrzeug, because it flies (Flug -> flight) instead of driving (but as mentioned: the Wikipedia article states a different opinion: Flugzeuge are Luftfahrzeuge, while, say, cars are Landfahrzeuge, i.e. both vehicles belong to sub-categories of Fahrzeuge).

---

But back to the topic: as a non-native English speaker

- all my arguments are based on the most common German translation "Fahrzeug" of "vehicle". What if some subtleties are lost in this translation?

- I doubt that the typical English native speaker tends to think as deeply about words as is not unusual in Germany (when I did analyses of English words to native English speakers they nearly always admitted that they never ever thought of such analyses)

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#34

Post by Macha »

bhaney wrote: post #28
Macha wrote: post #16

The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#35

Post by semiquaver »

bhaney wrote: post #20

Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…

Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#36

Post by casey2 »

Just because "some people" believe something doesn't mean you have to make a webapp "debunking" them, and just because law is often complicated with many edge cases doesn't mean it can't be simpler or partly automated.

Everyone here implicitly knows that natural languages have ambiguity this is why formal languages were invented and it's painful that governing bodies hasn't caught up in many places. Imagine a world where you could diff laws from federal to state, state to state, stateA.city to stateB.city or StateA.cityA to StateA.cityB. or a log where you could see exactly when a law was changed and why.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#37

Post by naikrovek »

parl_match wrote: post #10
iherbig wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you do, honestly. The point of the exercise is exactly the ambiguity that stood out to you. Also, the question was very explicitly not asking if an ambulance in the park is "okay." The question is asking is it a rule violation. It's an excellent analogy, in my opinion, because what it's trying to be analogous to is the general ambiguity of language that makes content moderation difficult. It's hardly…

I do get the point, I'm saying that the analogy was bad. The point could have been made better.

it's a nearly perfect analogy for a laymans view of what content moderation should look like.

"my children will see no violence" looks wonderful on paper but there are a great many edge cases where this simple rule is plainly broken all the time in harmless ways.

in reality, what crosses the line one has in mind when they create the simple rule is created is far, far more complex than anyone who makes these rules is prepared to admit.

there is so little "black and white" in these things; it's almost entirely "grey" areas. that's what this quiz is meant to convey.

it is extremely effective at this.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#38

Post by bhaney »

Macha wrote: post #34
bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

I answered "is a vehicle" to 15 out of 27 questions and also got 11%, so this is either a crazy coincidence or the number's effectively hard coded.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#39

Post by yellowstuff »

Macha wrote: post #34
bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

I said yes to about half and also got 11%

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#40

Post by preommr »

Macha wrote: post #34
bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

I answered yes to one and also got 11%
Post reply on HN