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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by luminen »

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 got 11% voting yes on only the Honda Civic and the police. (I accidentally clicked no on the ambulance)

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

#112

Post by vharuck »

At the time of my completing the quiz, 21% said riding a skateboard in the park violated the rule. But only 13% said carrying a skateboard violated the rule.

I'm puzzled by that. Does a vehicle stop being a vehicle when it's not vehicularizing? It'd get it if it were, "Jane carries a food tray" versus "Joe rides a food tray down the hill." But here the skateboard's purpose is to be ridden.

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

#113

Post by jakelazaroff »

dvt wrote: post #91

The lesson here is one worth learning, but the vehicle (forgive the pun) is very poor. The lesson is: we can't agree on what to moderate and what not to moderate. There are very good thought experiments here, including citing actual prose. Should we ban parts of the Bible (the sexually explicit ones, or the ones that seem to approve of slavery?), should we ban books like Lolita or the Scarlet Letter? Should we allow…

> These are questions worth asking and answers worth hearing, but the problem with the question here is that the rule "no vehicles in the park" already comes with a lot of baggage. For example, it's obvious that the rule is meant to prevent driving engine-propulsion vehicles through a park (a rule that we've seen many times in our own parks), so naturally police cars and ambulances will (or should) be exempt, especially if trying to save a life. Otherwise the corollary would be that saving a life is less important than the rule "no vehicles in the park." Which most would very obviously disagree with.

That's the point, though! Everyone arrives at these moderation discussions with baggage, and it's not the same baggage.

Like, it is very much not obvious to me that the rule is "meant to prevent driving engine-propulsion vehicles through a park". Plenty of parks prohibit bikes and skateboards. If we care about "saving a life" then I actually don't think we should make an exception for cop cars. Reasonable people can disagree! Even the most obvious-seeming judgments are, in fact, not obvious.

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

#114

Post by eep_social »

labster wrote: post #49

I feel like it’s missing: * A truck is driven over the corner of the park, but it uses a ramp so it never physically touched the ground of the park. * One tire of a car drives 10cm on along the edge of a park, but the truck’s satnav has a different datum than your cadastral data.

> over the corner

A Wyoming federal court just ruled the truck wasn’t in the park [1], I agree!

* the platted boundary of the park extends into the road.

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wyd.606...

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

#115

Post by wzdd »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

My reasoning was that in emergencies, typically, certain rules don't apply to certain groups of people if their actions are related to the emergency. Therefore, a police officer driving a police car into the park (assuming they're doing it because of the emergency) is not a violation of "no vehicles in the park" because for that officer, in that situation, there effectively is no such rule.

In the real world, we might debate whether it was actually an emergency and so on, but here we're told straight up.

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

#116

Post by kallistisoft »

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 also got 11% answered no to everything but car and horse...

Not sure given the other responses if this number is acurate?

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

#117

Post by ThunderSizzle »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #93
generalizations wrote: post #73

"vehicle:" * means of carrying or transporting something (planes, trains, and other vehicles) such as a) motor vehicle or b) a piece of mechanized equipment - Websters Online Dictionary * 1) any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles. 2) conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, aut…

Let's take the third definition. Do the roller skates count? The wheelchair? The rowboat?

None of those have an engine, which both the first and third definitions would say is typical.

That's why the only vehicle that made me pause was the tank, since it was at one point motorized, but no longer.

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

#118

Post by NolF »

generalizations wrote: post #73

"vehicle:" * means of carrying or transporting something (planes, trains, and other vehicles) such as a) motor vehicle or b) a piece of mechanized equipment - Websters Online Dictionary * 1) any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles. 2) conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, aut…

Such as "No hate speech".

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

#119

Post by nohaydeprobleme »

petercooper wrote: post #25

I said no to every question as even in the cases where a vehicle did enter the park, it was only one and the rule says "no vehicle s ". Remember that the No Homers Club was allowed to have one Homer.

I also answered no to every question and got the "11%" statistic, matching the percentage that many other users here received.

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

#120

Post by tedunangst »

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,…

It seems unlikely that we both agreed with 11%, yet that's what it says.
Post reply on HN