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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example);

Well, there are many possible options, so this does not help unless you know which issue was bothering the rule-makers.

I know a park that allows horses but not bicycles.

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

#262

Post by kens »

Macha wrote: post #34
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")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

I came to the comments to find out what's going on with the 11%. I was worried that if I agreed with the majority just 11% of the time I must have reversed the buttons or something. But my choices mostly agree with the graph, so I don't think I made an error. I guess everyone gets 11%?

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

#263

Post by robinson7d »

lkbm wrote: post #256
robinson7d wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You’re absolutely right! My bad, I appear to have forgotten that rule by the time I commented. Glad I called it a violation :)

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

#264

Post by emmelaich »

Rapzid wrote: post #202
planckscnst wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "pulled a wagon" one is another aspect. Is the answerer assuming a vehicle pulled the wagon? I immediately wondered if the wagon was pulled by hand or animal or a vehicle.

Wagons are vehicles in the strictest since.

Why use a strictest sense? Why not a sense considered appropriate assuming the context?

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

#265

Post by asveikau »

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…

Nobody provided the definition of vehicle either. The summary references lawyers using a variation of this game, but most legalese I've seen as a layperson usually starts by defining terms.

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

#266

Post by bentcorner »

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…

It's interesting to think about the same sign and "vehicle" in different contexts could have different answers.

For example, the same sign in a school hallway leading to an enclosed play area for kindergartners would most certainly result in more violations.

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

#267

Post by tharkun__ »

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.

And the instructions very clearly state that you should not take into account whether in this case it would be OK to violate the rule. Just whether the rule was broken or not. As such, a police car or ambulance in the park very clearly violate the rule and thus you must choose that answer.

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

#268

Post by hsn915 »

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…

Yea this seems like an argument in favor of extensive (and confusing) legaleese / lawyerese

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

#269

Post by fukawi2 »

bentcorner wrote: post #247
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.

Agree. Emergency vehicles don't automatically get a "free pass", there are separate rules that apply an exemption. So the question and rule, as written, says that the emergency vehicles do violate the rule IMO. In the real world, there would just be other rules that would apply an exemption.

(IANAL, but have been driving emergency vehicles for 15 years).

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

#270

Post by hsn915 »

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #211
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…

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.

No one made anything up. It's obviously the intent of the question.

You can pretend that's not the case all you want.

Post reply on HN