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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by mint2 »

parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

So is a dissolving pill capsule, which is a vehicle for delivering medicine, allowed in the park?!

I get what the author hopes to do, but it’s really a bad go at it.

Although perhaps that’s because arguing a losing position is hard.

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

#332

Post by jamdamu »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #312
emmelaich wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the tank is no longer a vehicle. More like a statue than a vehicle.

how is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no

What if the rule was created after the tank was already in the park? There was no information given on how the tank was transported to the park, and you're creating a violation based off a hypothetical.

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

#333

Post by zarzavat »

paxys wrote: post #132
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.

If you believe that the spirit of rules is more important than the text, then those people were obeying the spirit of the rule to not include exceptions, not the text.

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

#334

Post by mint2 »

wvenable wrote: post #308
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?

No pill capsules in the park then? aren’t they a vehicle for delivering medicine?

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

#335

Post by ahahahahah »

orionstein wrote: post #210
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 felt the exact same way. I found there was exactly one example of a vehicle being in the park, and everything else was fine. That didn't seem to be their intent

You clearly didn't understand. It's mostly not able how easy or not you found it to apply the rule, it was about how whatever you decided was actually quite different from other people. In fact, you finding it very clear makes the point apply even more.

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

#336

Post by Drew_ »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #314

A lot of comments here about how the intro instructed us to make a very literal interpretation. I'm not so sure. The exact wording 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." Rephrasing an earlier comment here, but - it's still a park right? On earth? What juris…

No the instructions are clear. Figuring out where the park is just isn't part of the exercise. In fact, by the letter of the rules, it's impossible to find out. Pick any definition of "local jurisdiction" you want and you still don't know where the park is. It is not necessarily in that jurisdiction (or out of it either). It's not necessarily even on earth or in this universe either.

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

#337

Post by natch »

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…

More split than what? Only 11% agreed with my correct answers. Seems pretty split to me and I can only see the results for one person.

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

#338

Post by resolutebat »

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 fully agreed with the GP for the same reasons: in my book everything except the Civic was OK, because that matches the intent of the sign.

In both law and real life, there is a common understanding (to use your term) that rules may be violated for the greater good. Does driving an ambulance into the park violate the letter of the rule? Yes, but it's still OK because we give emergency vehicles wide leeway to break rules so they can save lives. Judaism even encodes this in a general principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

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

#339

Post by monkeywork »

themaninthedark wrote: post #152
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.

You can fly a plane across the globe but the plane's flight path must be approved by each of the 15 countries before it is allowed in their airspace. The countries often ask for passenger lists and manifests before they allow your plane to do so and have, in the past forced planes to land to get to passengers or suspected passengers on the plane they have an interest in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grou…

countries yes - because countries have airspaces. Parks typically do not - anymore than people flying over my house are not tresspassing.

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

#340

Post by cypress66 »

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.

Not really an opinion if you follow the instructions, unless somehow you argue an ambulance is not a vehicle.
Post reply on HN