The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by schoen » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

NolF wrote: post #103

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…

> 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! I disagree, lawyers would have no work then. Laws are not as specific as you would think they are and it is to provide a diverse gamut of powers and broad discretion in their application. For example, the first amendment does not offer an unlimited ri…

> For example, the first amendment does not offer an unlimited right to say what you want, when you want, and however you want. At what point does said speech become prohibited hate speech, inciting violence, verbal assault, defamation etc...?

By the way, there's no "hate speech" exception in U.S. first amendment jurisprudence.

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

#122

Post by nohaydeprobleme » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

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 no to every single scenario as a test, and I also got 11%.

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

#123

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

abtinf wrote: post #85

juujian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

Strictly speaking, I think calling for the death penalty is advocating for a legal ruling. The violence following such a ruling is a second-order consequence.

"Calling for someone to be shot is advocating for a lever to be pressed. The violence following such a pressing is a second-order consequence."

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

#124

Post by nitwit005 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:06 AM UTC

This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising.

If this included a definition of a vehicle, and asked if a vehicle was in the park, I'd expect consistent answers outside of the oddball aircraft and space station questions.

I'd note my local park has such a rule, and the sign has pictures of what are and are not allowed, including a picture of a drone.

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

#125

Post by karmakaze » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:06 AM UTC

I don't know that this had the intended effect for me. I answered the questions as I would like the 'rule' enforced. The important thing isn't about believing the rule to be entirely valid and merely enforcing it, it's about which way you want it applied and why. Then you have to try to make everything else also fit into the oddly shaped boundaries that are forming. It's also way better if you can be transparent about it, and in some cases redraw the lines and reformulate how to decide which side new cases land.

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

#126

Post by eyelidlessness » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:07 AM UTC

abtinf wrote: post #85

juujian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

Strictly speaking, I think calling for the death penalty is advocating for a legal ruling. The violence following such a ruling is a second-order consequence.

By that logic, no one is advocating violence unless they intend to participate in the violent act directly. It’s a logically consistent position, but it’s also a highly implausible one.

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

#127

Post by l0b0 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:07 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #102

l0b0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

So that includes wheelchair?

Yep. Obviously this is a thought experiment, and the site did tell users to take the problem as stated very literally. So I basically went with two simple rules:

- Would anyone call it a vehicle?

- Is it in the park?

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

#128

Post by GloomyBoots » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

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 answered yes to all of them and it said I was in the 11% majority as well.

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

#129

Post by jrockway » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

That was fun. I decided early on that a vehicle is any tool that allows something to move. So an ant on a paper airplane or a kite is a vehicle. The surfboard allows someone to move and they carried it into the park, so that's not allowed. Since I wasn't allowed to apply any of my jurisdiction's laws, I also had to ticket the International Space Station for going into my park's airspace. Moon, I'm watching you, you're next.

Thinking about it further, no shoes either.

They said this was all about content moderation and to me the answer is simple. I would never visit the "no vehicles in the park" park.

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

#130

Post by madeofpalk » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

l0b0 wrote: post #127

megablast wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that includes wheelchair?

Yep. Obviously this is a thought experiment , and the site did tell users to take the problem as stated very literally. So I basically went with two simple rules: - Would anyone call it a vehicle? - Is it in the park?

So that includes wheelchair? Would anyone call it a vehicle?