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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by Reki »

Jim backs his RV into the park. He does so without his vehicle entering the park.

Pam comes to the park and begins to live in Jim's RV.

Bob, an alien, lands his spaceship in the park and initiates first contact.

Tim, a pipercub pilot, lands his plane in the park after suffering an engine failure.

Sam rides the subway home underneath the park.

Jordan, a maintenance worker, repairs a broken light in the park from his cherrypicker.

Robert, Jordan's boss, alleges he broke the rule. Another light needs to be replaced, so Robert fixes it, but ensures the cherrypicker's wheels are outside the park.

Tom, a tow truck driver, tows Tamika's car.

Bill emails a complete 3d cad model of a car, which happens to use a fiber line running under the park.

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

#302

Post by dec0dedab0de »

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…

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule.

I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

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

#303

Post by dmattia »

koolba wrote: post #255
dmattia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Aha, I love a man of principle. I would say that I would have had a sandwich in that case, as I believe that the structure of the food item should only be considered as it enters your mouth, completely removed from an explanation as to how that food item came to be up to that point.

However, I wonder you you would reconcile an uncut, folded pizza not being a sandwich against a meatball marinara, which to my understanding is a single piece of sliced bread with meat and sauce in the middle. Is this not a sandwich?

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

#304

Post by dmattia »

jachee wrote: post #253
dmattia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My view is that a ravioli is a type of pop tart, which I do view as a sandwich

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

#305

Post by QuadrupleA »

Gigachad wrote: post #300
QuadrupleA wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in that case the whole ruse of the park is pointless, and the game should just be "click the words that are vehicles". And matchbox cars and space stations are included.

That's exactly what it told the reader to do. Ignore everything else but the literal question, is it violating the rule of no vehicles in the park.

The exact phrasing in the intro is "You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction."

But it's still a park right? On earth? What jurisdiction on earth blocks matchbox cars and space stations? Or even ambulances and police cars, which were the main ambiguous ones? Does some country not allow ambulances in its parks? Am I supposed to include the entirety of modern human culture as we know it as a "local jurisdiction"?

I don't think the intro instructions were very clear.

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

#306

Post by cmdli »

andrewflnr wrote: post #254
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 muc…

I feel the same way as the above comment. If you were an actual administrator in charge of fining people for violating the rule, almost none of these examples should give you pause. You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead, for example. With these examples, there really isn't much disagreement on whether action should be taken, so any discussion of whether a rule is technically violated is moot.

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

#307

Post by subarctic »

Reki wrote: post #301

Jim backs his RV into the park. He does so without his vehicle entering the park. Pam comes to the park and begins to live in Jim's RV. Bob, an alien, lands his spaceship in the park and initiates first contact. Tim, a pipercub pilot, lands his plane in the park after suffering an engine failure. Sam rides the subway home underneath the park. Jordan, a maintenance worker, repairs a broken light in the park from his c…

>Jim backs his RV into the park. He does so without his vehicle entering the park.

He backs his RV into the park? That means his RV enters the park, right? What does the V stand for in RV?

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

#308

Post by wvenable »

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.

Vehicle is a word with a dictionary definition -- why does it need to have a definition included? Would that definition not include other words, would those also need to be defined?

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

#309

Post by bhaney »

gmane wrote: post #245
monocasa wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do the missiles count as vehicles? Might not be able to bring them in.

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

#310

Post by bandofthehawk »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302
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…

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

Even if the park includes a skate park and a bike trail? I guess it depends on what size/type of park you are familiar with.
Post reply on HN