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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by jandrese »

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…

There are two ways to approach the problem. Either to be dogmatic about the wording or to be practical. I ended up with only one "is a vehicle" because I was enforcing it the way I would enforce a rule like that in real life, a practical rule. If you were being dogmatic about the wording you would undermine the likely intent of the sign by kicking people out of their wheelchairs and having to shoot down the ISS. Rigid adherence to bad (or even just badly worded) rules is its own form of tyranny, one that is even more insidious because it has a veneer of legitimacy. Much evil has been perpetrated throughout history by people who were "just following orders".

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

#252

Post by irjustin »

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…

> Yes, I'm aware this has nothing to do with the point of the exercise.

No actually I do think it does and is captured beautifully in the game. Things that clearly once vehicles are arguably no longer - like the war tank.

Like Michelangelo's David, is the nudity porn? is it obscene? for who? Is this a website about art? or a porn site? education site? a site for children?

Each one of those sites have differing views of the exact same thing.

Love this exercise.

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

#253

Post by jachee »

dmattia wrote: post #230
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…

I think the author should have made the statement "A sandwich is an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them". And then asked questions like: - Is a grilled cheese a sandwich? - Is two pieces of bread with a third piece of bread in the middle a sandwich? - Is a hotdog a sandwich? - Is a taco a sandwich? - Is a breadbowl a sandwich? - Is a poptart a sandwich? - Is…

Are ravioli sandwiches?

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

#254

Post by andrewflnr »

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…

If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a bunch of special cases and refinements from thin air. The way I read the setup, it was "crystal clear" that the rule was violated by emergency services, even if we could agree afterwards not to enforce it there.

And, yes, of course, moderation questions are much harder. At least with the vehicle thing people aren't usually aren't deliberately constructing tricky cases.

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

#255

Post by koolba »

dmattia wrote: post #230
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…

I think the author should have made the statement "A sandwich is an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them". And then asked questions like: - Is a grilled cheese a sandwich? - Is two pieces of bread with a third piece of bread in the middle a sandwich? - Is a hotdog a sandwich? - Is a taco a sandwich? - Is a breadbowl a sandwich? - Is a poptart a sandwich? - Is…

> Is a pizza folded in half a sandwich?

If you don’t cut it, no.

If you cut it at the fold, yes.

Now what if the pizza crust is toasted enough that, while it was not your intent, it breaks evenly at the seam during the act of folding it in half, and then you proceed to collapse the two halves before taking a bite. Did you have a sandwich for lunch?

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

#256

Post by lkbm »

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 second page of instructions actually specifically addressed that: "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

I went with "yes, violation" with the understanding that it's one that would be allowed. Perhaps I was wrong to mix "would" and "should".

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

#259

Post by emmelaich »

l0b0 wrote: post #47
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…

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.

Even for no-fly zones, we don't say 'in' the place. We say in the zone. We're over the place, but in the zone.

Is an airplane in your park if you put a roof over it? Is an airplane in your house?

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

emmelaich wrote: post #246
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,…

> 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)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN