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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by pitched »

semiquaver wrote: post #346
tempestn wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, some people added others that weren't explicit in the rule. For example, the person riding a skateboard was considered a violation by roughly twice as many people as the person carrying one, despite both being identical on the "is a vehicle" and "in the park" axes. I suppose unless someone's definition of vehicle depends on it being in use.

Despite the instructions explicitly saying not to I suspect many people (like me) could not help but “look through” the stated rule to infer its intent, especially for the more unusual examples. It’s quite a lot harder to imagine a real world rule that prohibits a carried skateboard vs one being used, even if both situations represent the same 2-vector in the rule’s truth table. It’s hard to turn off the part of your…

How about some sort of pedestrian sky bridge? No vehicles but also no carried skateboards for fear of dropping it.

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

#352

Post by Drew_ »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #341
Drew_ wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about finding the particular jurisdiction. It's that any jurisdiction will have almost all of this stuff in common. If we're not even taking about earth or this universe then discussion is probably hopeless...

> It's that any jurisdiction will have almost all of this stuff in common.

I'm not sure how you could say something like this so earnestly... All parks on Earth have the same rules on vehicles? You sure about that?

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

#353

Post by bix6 »

Is every single answer that there is a vehicle in the park? I skipped after 7 but I said all were vehicles in a park. I looked up the definition of vehicle before answering and all seemed to apply. Surfboard I wasn’t certain but I think it’s still definitionally a vehicle? I looked up machine at this point as this one was tricky.

From wiki A vehicle (from Latin vehiculum)[1] is a machine that transports people or cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters for disabled people), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats, underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, aerostats) and spacecraft.[2]

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

#354

Post by wilg »

Macha wrote: post #16

The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…

Yeah, I don't get what the score means. Also saw 11%. Clearly the number means something other than what people think it means, which is maybe the real test.

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

#355

Post by MontyCarloHall »

raldi wrote: post #344
cmdli wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

If you didn't think a bicycle violated the rule, what about an e-bike? Or a fully battery-powered bike that doesn't require pedaling?

Those are exactly the questions the quiz should have asked, not clearly absurd examples that are unambiguously not vehicles in the park, like the ISS passing over the park.

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

#356

Post by semiquaver »

abtinf wrote: post #85
juujian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

Strictly speaking, I think calling for the death penalty is advocating for a legal ruling. The violence following such a ruling is a second-order consequence.

I doubt their mother sees it in such bloodless terms.

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

#357

Post by patmcc »

pix128 wrote: post #321
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.

The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.

What if I fly a helicopter 10 feet off the ground, in the area of the park. Is that 'over' or 'through'?

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

#358

Post by TaylorAlexander »

raldi wrote: post #344
cmdli wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

If you didn't think a bicycle violated the rule, what about an e-bike? Or a fully battery-powered bike that doesn't require pedaling?

I love my fully battery powered ebike but I am well aware they are prohibited pretty much everywhere. When filling out the form I figured a bike is not a vehicle because they tend to be explicitly spelled out, but ebikes are more often prohibited (though in my area, not enforced), and my overpowered ebike is illegal everywhere, but I am respectful of others and there is no enforcement.

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

#359

Post by comex »

tedunangst wrote: post #136
wzdd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reasoning was that in emergencies, typically, certain rules don't apply to certain groups of people if their actions are related to the emergency. Therefore, a police officer driving a police car into the park (assuming they're doing it because of the emergency) is not a violation of "no vehicles in the park" because for that officer, in that situation, there effectively is no such rule. In the real world, we migh…

I thought the instructions were pretty clear that it's a violation, even if e.g. your religion says it's okay.

I think the instructions are ambiguous. The instructions first say to disregard any "rule in your jurisdiction which overrides certain rules", or whether your "religion allows certain rules to be overridden". But both of these hypotheticals are reasons why you might disregard the desires of the hypothetical park owner who instituted the rule. This is different from the police and ambulance examples, where the park owner would almost certainly want to allow those vehicles.

The instructions then continue, "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)." But again this could be interpreted two ways.

One interpretation is that an emergency vehicle entering the park would technically violate the rule, but everyone (including legal and religious authorities and the park owner) would agree that the violation "should" be allowed. However, I interpreted "should" more in line with the previous statements as referring to some kind of controversy (park owner says it's not allowed, but for legal or religious or moral reasons I think it should be allowed). Under this interpretation, the rule has an implicit exception for emergency vehicles, so they are not violating it. The exception is just so obvious that it's not worth including (especially given the text length limits of the signs where park rules tend to be written down).

My interpretation might sound like a stretch. But imagine if the rule instead said "No vehicles in the park, including emergency vehicles." Wouldn't that be materially different? Yet the difference doesn't affect whether a violation should be legally/religiously/morally allowed. At most, it might hint that there might be some practical reason why emergency vehicles shouldn't enter (perhaps it's dangerous), and perhaps a reasonable emergency vehicle operator should take that information into account when determining whether violating the rule would be justified. But that's only an indirect effect, and there's clearly more to it than that. Regardless of whether there is any justification, the clause would clarify that the park owner really doesn't want emergency vehicles, when otherwise we would assume they do. And to me that difference is best interpreted as affecting "whether the rule is violated".

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

#360

Post by TaylorAlexander »

resolutebat wrote: post #338
andrewflnr wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Well my view was that the answer is yes the ambulance violates the rule, but violating the rule is morally fine there. But still pedantically yes the ambulance does violate the no vehicles rule.
Post reply on HN