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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by bhaney »

racked wrote: post #155
lacker wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like good analogy to content moderation. You have to ask "is the forbidden content actually on the site?" For example you can have a rule like "no sharing pornographic content", but then are people allowed to share links to forbidden content? Links to sites that are 100% links to forbidden content? Links to sites that have one link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? Links to sites that have o…

This is why Reddit is banned in Indonesia; because there's a bit of porn. Now laypeople just use Twitter instead...

"a bit"

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

#182

Post by generalizations »

NolF wrote: post #118
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".

As it’s enforced today, that would be relatively easy to define, but I don’t think anyone wants to actually say out loud what that definition would be.

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

#184

Post by usui »

gh02t wrote: post #137
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")

Am I crazy/dumb or is the chart super confusing? I really had to stare at it to figure out how to read it, and I'm still just guessing the vertical scale is percent of the whole that think each item is a car. But also I got 11% here.

I agree. This has to be the worst, most unintentionally confusing graph I've ever seen. And I don't solely blame this website because many people make this mistake too: For crying out loud, how can you make the simple mistake of not labeling your axis? People online who make graphs—stop not labeling your axes! It's the whole point of the graph!

And 11%, why is everyone getting 11%? Is it a backend error? Who knows! If that 11% had a label, it would be easier for us to know whether it's working as intended or not.

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

#185

Post by generalizations »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #153
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Typical, sure, but not required!

This is why legal documents often have important definitions listed. In the last case, the answer hinges on the definition of “machine”. Pick a definition of that, and I’ll tell you if a boat is a vehicle.

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

#186

Post by rlpb »

derefr wrote: post #149

To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboar…

I think you might have arrived at the Mischief rule of statutory interpretation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).

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

#187

Post by ranger207 »

One thing this doesn't mention bit I think is just as important is tone. Some communities are fine with casual assumptions, others require sources if challenged. Sometimes these things can be encoded in rules, sometimes it's more moderator discretion. So in addition to rules interpretation communities can be distinguished by vibes as well. This is just as valid a reason to moderate as rules

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

#188

Post by marssaxman »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #117
jakelazaroff wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I interpreted the tank as a form of sculpture, not a vehicle.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

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")

[deleted]
Post reply on HN