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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by monocasa »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #219
seized wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about common sense. Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves. Uncle Jim Bob trying to drive his Buick around is what's obviously prohibited as that's the vehicle/driver most likely to cause harm...

> Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves. By this logic, it’s ok for a police officer to drive through the park’s green on his way to work, with no emergency.

I mean, having seen pissing matches between civic authorities and cops play out, that's what I'd expect at the end of the day.

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

#242

Post by lkbm »

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.

Now hold on, doesn't the person on skates have two vehicles?

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

#243

Post by jrm4 »

Lawyer here.

I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "if they wrote the laws clearer..."

nope. nope nope nope. This is not how it works.

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

#245

Post by gmane »

monocasa wrote: post #231
jrockway wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO,…

But it's not really a local thing; I'd be shocked if there was a park which meaningfully controlled it's airspace. Practically the bounds of a park only go so high.

I mean, while it's not technically just the park, I'm sure there are several parks on US Military bases where the airspace is restricted. Also, we can be the change we wish to see in the world: any park can be a park with a controlled airspace if you bring enough surface-to-air missiles into the park.

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

#246

Post by emmelaich »

jrockway wrote: post #147
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.

> 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. But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO,…

> specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction,

To me, that doesn't change the answers much. You still have to have some definition of vehicle that inevitably assumes some context.

That to me means any human-propelled thing smaller than say a motorbike is not a vehicle.

So I only said 'is indisputably a vehicle' to cars and similar (even if was an ambulance or police car)

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

#247

Post by bentcorner »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

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) do…

> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

Thus IMO emergency vehicles violate the rule, although they should be allowed. Same thing IMO with the tank. Sure it's inoperable but it's a vehicle, in the park.

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

#248

Post by hsjqllzlfkf »

robinson7d wrote: post #235
hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unclear given that you and I don't agree. The question wasnt "does the police have to follow the sign", you made that up.

The nuance on that one felt odd. I said that it did violate the rule (even the spirit of the rule, being a large motor vehicle), because it was a binary question. I also felt the rule violation was justified and that they shouldn’t be called out on it.

I even disagree that there was any nuance. I wasn't told "you're doing content moderation, there's a rule, the rule is violated but there could be some mitigating circumstances, do you allow the content?". I was told: is there a vehicle in the park, and I said yes because a police car is a vehicle and it's in the park.

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

#249

Post by heartbreak »

robinson7d wrote: post #235
hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unclear given that you and I don't agree. The question wasnt "does the police have to follow the sign", you made that up.

The nuance on that one felt odd. I said that it did violate the rule (even the spirit of the rule, being a large motor vehicle), because it was a binary question. I also felt the rule violation was justified and that they shouldn’t be called out on it.

The question wasn’t about being called out on it (or punished/prosecuted/whatever). It was simply asking if it violated the rule.

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

#250

Post by lkbm »

irrational wrote: post #78

There was one question about some sort of thing that was pulled that started with the letter T. I had no idea what that was. But then later it goes into detail defining what a Matchbox car is. I thought that was odd. Was the assumption that everyone would know what the T- thing is, but not a Matchbox car, part of the test? Also, many people said the International Space Station was a vehicle in the park. I find that s…

"travois". It's basically a sledge dragged along the ground and pulled by (usually) a horse.

I think "travois" is something you either know or you know you're going to have to look it up, so there's no risk of confusion. "Matchbox car" seems like something someone might not know, but just think "oh, a car, I know what a car is" without realizing it's a toy.

That said, I also felt like the description didn't explain it well enough. There are electric toy cars that kids actually ride in and drive around. The thing about a matchbox car is that it's the size of a matchbox.

Post reply on HN