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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by dvt »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #177
dvt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the most obvious-seeming judgments are, in fact, not obvious. I kind of disagree with this. The question leaves the definition of "vehicle," "in," and "park" purposefully ambiguous, so everyone kind of tries to fit the most "common sense" solution. In fact, I'd contend that the rule "life of a person outweighs park rule" is not even remotely controversial (apart from some maybe unreasonably staunch environment…

IMO the point is that those semantic quagmires always exist, especially if you're trying to make rules about something as nebulous as human language. And ambiguity is really common, too. Like, consider a rule against "hate speech" — that's ambiguous as heck! Even if you try to really nail it down, there will always be a zillion ways that people can try to skirt by on a technicality. And even if you do agree on the sp…

> And even if you do agree on the spirit of the rules, they're still up for interpretation!

Yeah, exactly, I do think that's the point the site was trying to make.

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

#192

Post by n8cpdx »

sangnoir wrote: post #179
nitwit005 wrote: post #124

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.

> This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising. Here's a common example from real life: "No pornography". Even SCOTUS famously couldn't define obscenity ("I know it when I see it")

Is “No pornography” a rule? It doesn’t specify any prohibited action and on its own isn’t a complete thought, let alone a rule.

“I know it when I see it” was in reference to _hardcore pornography_, not obscenity. The Miller Test deals with obscenity perfectly well.

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

#193

Post by mathgeek »

bhaney wrote: post #68
jorvi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.

That would depend on your definition of "carry." I personally wouldn't say that shoes "carry" people any more than floors do (which is to say, they don't).

A more obvious example is a pregnant woman, or a woman holding a baby. Both can reasonably be called “carrying a human”.

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

#194

Post by juujian »

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.

Now the interesting question is, what would happen if I was to ask for the death penalty on a crime that does not carry the death penalty? Or only carries the death penalty in countries with legal systems that we object to, like Iran?

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

#195

Post by fsckboy »

jagthebeetle wrote: post #74

"Travois" seemed the most interesting one. Based purely on the first page of Google images, it struck me as somewhere between a horse and a carriage, but ever more on the vehicle side.

it has no wheels so it is just dragged, maybe behind a horse but people can drag them too. horses walk and carriages roll, so it's not really between them. it's the asymptotic limit as wheels shrink to zero.

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

#196

Post by dcow »

usui wrote: post #184
gh02t wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! I…

I too got 11%. But I think it's actually emergent, not an error.

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

#197

Post by fsckboy »

>I hope that this game has made you reconsider your views on content moderation.

why would this game even make me think of content moderation? When you brought it up yourself I felt suckered, realizing I'd been sucked into a poorly thought out yet somewhat politicized "bias test" masquerading as a "survey".

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

#198

Post by crazygringo »

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended.

To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

So if this is supposed to be an example of how content moderation rules are unclear to follow, it's achieving precisely the opposite.

(To be clear, I think content moderation rules are often difficult to figure out when to apply. I just think the vehicles-in-park rule is much, much, much clearer than many content moderation rules.)

Post reply on HN