The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by josefx » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:07 AM UTC

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…

> and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

Cue ambulance crashing through a wooden bridge over a river because it was never intended to carry the weight, or getting stuck in a tunnel, driving over pedestrians that can't get out of the way because there is no space left, ... . Blindly ignoring a rule because you can is not always a good idea. You might be able to ignore the rule, but you can't ignore the reason why it was put in place.

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

#392

Post by jujube3 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:08 AM UTC

Translation: his parents are lawyers, so he has a low opinion of the rule of law and wants to "problematize" it. In favor of arguing for, essentially, despotism.

But his own experiment shows that most people do agree on what even a deliberately poorly worded rule means in most cases. So it basically shows the exact opposite of what he was trying to prove, which is that rules are unworkable.

The "game" (I use the word loosely) gets quite silly. The space station passing overhead is not "problematic" for a rule about vehicles in the park, except for someone deliberately trying to be obtuse. Like with the rest of this other nonsense, if it ever did become problematic, someone could change the rule to clear it up. The end.

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

#393

Post by mbork_pl » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:08 AM UTC

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…

The game was pretty clear that the question was not if it "should be allowed to violate the rule", but if it violates the rule in the first place.

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

#394

Post by kristopolous » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

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…

An interesting way to go about this would be through revelation

The rule is "no adult content"

1 A scholar is discussing their recently published contribution

2 as a professional sexologist

3 whose area of study is pornography

4 Ancient pornography

5 And how it relates to modern styles

6 of fiction literature and paintings

7 by quoting seedy passages of ancient erotic literate

8 written in ancient Sumerian

Etc... With every sentence fragment of increasing context you can get people changing their minds

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

#395

Post by Qwertious » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:11 AM UTC

bhaney wrote: post #68

jorvi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.

That would depend on your definition of "carry." I personally wouldn't say that shoes "carry" people any more than floors do (which is to say, they don't).

By the same logic, wouldn't rollerblades also not carry people (and by extension, not be vehicles)?

Rollerblades, skis, snowboards, skateboards, scooters, bikes.

IMO the definition of a vehicle comes down to how wieldy, how large, and how powerful the device is - for instance car is obviously a vehicle as it's very powerful, has a large turning radius, and large area. The interesting thing about this is that there's an argument that scooters are not vehicles but skateboards are - scooters are far easier to control (i.e. more wieldy) whereas skateboards have a tendency to launch the user in one direction and the skateboard in the other, which makes it rather unwieldy.

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

#396

Post by logifail » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #347

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…

Similarly, the question asks "does it violate the rule" not "should the vehicle be allowed in the park". Of course driving an ambulance into the park violates the rule - but it's ok the break the rule for emergencies! Which of course illustrates that in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply. Especially in content moderation.

> in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply

I think it might be worse than that, there are sometimes rules which aren't actually rules which can still (sometimes!) override rules which are.

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

#397

Post by Qwertious » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

nocoiner wrote: post #296

asveikau wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, defined terms are critical. As the exercise went on, I kept refining my mental model of what a “vehicle” was in the context of the park sign. I eventually came up with a mental model that was something like “an artificially powered or mechanically advantaged means of conveyance or transport, especially one that creates negative externalities to other park goers inconsistent with typical use and enjoyment of publ…

>But that wasn’t absolute - the non-functional tank was, in my mind, quite obviously a vehicle, and so was prohibited.

Was, or is? The non-functional tank was a vehicle, but is currently a non-functional lump of steel and is thus no different to a statue. A statue is obviously not a vehicle, and a statue of a car is still not a vehicle.

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

#398

Post by MrJohz » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:15 AM UTC

nocoiner wrote: post #296

asveikau wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, defined terms are critical. As the exercise went on, I kept refining my mental model of what a “vehicle” was in the context of the park sign. I eventually came up with a mental model that was something like “an artificially powered or mechanically advantaged means of conveyance or transport, especially one that creates negative externalities to other park goers inconsistent with typical use and enjoyment of publ…

I had almost exactly the same definition, but interestingly I let the skydiver go free, and I figured the tank would be okay because it was stationary (and I think in my head I assumed someone else had allowed the memorial!)

In the end, I only banned the car and the boat, and the boat was only really on a technicality. In retrospect, I might have been being too lenient, but I think it had a lot to do with just the stuff that I wanted to see in the park, which is pretty interesting from a moderation perspective.

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

#399

Post by THENATHE » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

I think this analogy kinda falls apart because in reality the rule “no vehicles” is for a reason.

If “people could get hurt” is the reason for no vehicles, an RC car, a stroller, a quadcopter, and maybe even a hand pulled wagon is perfectly fine because the risk is very low.

If “the noise will be an issue” is the reason, bikes are fine but a quadcopter is not.

If “protecting the environment” is the problem, horses and rowboats may be allowed but RC cars and dirt bikes perhaps not.

Having a rule with no context for the rule is pointless.

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

#400

Post by Qwertious » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

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…

>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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal right to speed and run red lights in an emergency, and cops obviously have a right to trespass.

This of course is a paradox, as a rule is something that you are forbidden from doing, and being allowed to break the rule means you're allowed to do something you're forbidden from doing, which when interpreted literally is an oxymoron.

The obvious explanation is that the cops/ambulances have a set of rules that take priority over the park's rules , and some rules are more important than others.