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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by makeitdouble »

karmakaze wrote: post #125

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 abou…

> which way you want it applied and why

In the case the article has in mind, you can't silently decide what is ok and what isn't, as they'll be public decisions that create precedents (what formulate as "being transparent")

If you say wheelchairs are OK because disabled people need them, someone will ride a golf cart arguing they're disabled and need a cart. And you'll have to publicly explain if you think it's not ok and update the rules accordingly, and that will continue for every i stance of you not agreeing with someone's interpretation.

Put another eay, that constant and endless redrawing of the rules to explain what you had in mind is the point of the exercice, except you can't throw away the old rules nilky willy, you're only allowed to add more weird stuff on it

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

#162

Post by kazinator »

If the park is in my neck of the woods, I can just use this definition:

"vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include a device designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, mobile equipment, a motor assisted cycle or a regulated motorized personal mobility device

[BC Motor Vehicle Act, 1 Definitions]

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/stat...

The words written on some sign on a road or park are not meant to be freely defined by whoever happens to be reading the sign.

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

#164

Post by code_duck »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #94
code_duck wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that makes this exercise fairly useless is that any real world law or rule would have exemptions for such circumstances, and a definition of “in the park” and what a vehicle is… not just one sentence with no clarification. Beyond that, also a history of previous legal interpretation to which one could refer.

I actually disagree. I assume every law is subject to "at the discretion of the DA/judge" (or whoever is in charge). Do you think everyone needs to account for every emergency circumstance possible in every law? In real life, there's the law and then there are mitigating circumstances. (A few years ago I could have said "we don't get ticketed by an AI that only follows the rules it was given." Well, we do now in many…

Legal decisions are made based on historical interpretation, assumed intent of lawmakers and legal precedent. If needed legal interpretation can go back the English Common Law or the Magna Carta. A law or rule like this could be challenged in court as so vague as to be meaningless, and unenforceable.

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

#165

Post by mindcrime »

KMnO4 wrote: post #97
jefftk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)

I got 11% as well, with no to everything (including the emergency vehicles) and yes to the Honda civic

Same.

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

#166

Post by sosodev »

hahajk wrote: post #23

What this highlights is that online we have lost - or at least eroded - social norms. If I see a sign that says "no vehicles allowed", it's obvious they don't mean wagons and strollers. In almost all cases the police and the public are 99% in sync. Online, though, the moderators are forced to do a careful study of every action and become asinine literalists lest a horde of boundary-pushers ruin it for everyone.

Are you sure? Legal systems have been arguing about the semantics of "obvious" rules for thousands of years.

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

#168

Post by placesalt »

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")

Maybe it is meta commentary on how broken automatic content filters are when applied to forum posts.

I too got 11% but stuck assiduously to powered vehicles on the ground of or launched from the park.

I did not include the tank.

I also got the exact same percentage saying 'yes' to everything.

I also got the exact same percentage saying 'no ' to everything.

27 * .11 ~= 3, fwiw

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

vharuck wrote: post #112

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.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by talaketu »

girafffe_i wrote: post #146
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…

You aren't challenging your assumption of "in" How far does the airspace extend?

If "in the park" is meant as an analogy for "on the platform" in content moderation, then curiously enough Twitter suspended @RealDonaldTrump for off-park action (Jan 6).
Post reply on HN