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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by zimpenfish »

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…

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

By "doing their jobs", you presumably mean "responding to an emergency call", right? Because, e.g., cops in normal transit from A to B are "doing their jobs" but letting them drive through a "no vehicles allowed" park in that instance is probably bad. Or if they're on a high-speed chase - definitely "doing their jobs" but not something you'd want to happen through a park.

> an example of how content moderation rules are unclear to follow

You've amply demonstrated this by creating a huge muddy mess around "emergency services doing their jobs".

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

#412

Post by oezi »

semiquaver wrote: post #35
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…

Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.

It is funny that you say so because for me the primary axis was about whether the rule was violated or not.

This is why some people (including myself) chose that an ambulance driven into a park wouldn't be a violation of the rule.

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

#413

Post by josefx »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #327
taneq wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which side of the vehicle/nonvehicle line did you choose for these? Wagon, wheel chair, skateboard, surf board, parachute, roller skates, ice skates, shoes, socks.

It's not that hard. You have to understand a "park" is usually primarily some pseudo-preserve of nature, with varying degrees of permitted human recreational uses. That is what a "park" actually means. Users of parks generally know there will be varying usage rules for the park based on the park. But generally speaking, things that will destroy the "natural perserved" aspects, things that will disrupt other people us…

> There are people with authoritative knowledge, and you ask them the questions, and they give a "yes or no".

Given that there have been many cases of lawmakers not understanding the impact of their own laws. Contracts unraveled by punctuation errors, complex interactions between rules, people managing parks often not being the same as people writing the rules, ... . I find this claim to be completely removed from reality.

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

#414

Post by Helmut10001 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #377
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…

The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way. For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle…

We recently had this problem in Sweden: There are parking spaces where "Caravans" or "Campers" are forbidden (because they either tend to stay there all day or sleep) - we have a VW T4, it is considered of class "car" in Germany. We still sleep in it. Are we allowed to stay on these parking spaces? We decided: No. Our interpretation was that overnight-stays are unwanted by the local population or government. But the sign wasn't clear. The pictures on these signs also showed no vans, just big campers.

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

#415

Post by emmelaich »

jandrese wrote: post #251
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…

There are two ways to approach the problem. Either to be dogmatic about the wording or to be practical. I ended up with only one "is a vehicle" because I was enforcing it the way I would enforce a rule like that in real life, a practical rule. If you were being dogmatic about the wording you would undermine the likely intent of the sign by kicking people out of their wheelchairs and having to shoot down the ISS. Rigi…

Rules are for the police.

Intent is for the judges / lawyers.

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

#416

Post by plorkyeran »

paulclinger wrote: post #409
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'm with the parent comment, as I think the context is important here. If you think the emergency service vehicles violate the rule, how about a park maintenance vehicle or a park ranger vehicle? Would you say "no vehicles in the park" rule applies to them too, so they would be violating it?

Yes? I don’t understand the idea that being allowed to disregard a rule means that you aren’t violating it at all.

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

#417

Post by manmal »

I don’t find this particularly funny or enlightening. Making rules has always been hard, and I don’t see the author propose a solution to the problem that some people post weird shit on public feeds that we don’t want our young kids to witness. Kids are always online now - even if you think you have parental controls figured out, someone at school will have an uncensored phone and they‘ll all watch all the weird stuff during breaks.

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

#418

Post by Helmut10001 »

mint2 wrote: post #324
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,…

Same, the only three I marked as violating the rule were the car, the police and the ambulance. And it told me I agreed with 11% but showed a bar chart showing that basically everyone agreed with me. It was confusing. Also breaking a rule is fine for an emergency vehicle. I also took away the opposite of what the author tried to convey. But I also got a bad impression of their argumentative integrity because they tri…

I also got 11%, but I only selected 3 answers that did _not_ violate the rule: The matchbox toy car, the ISS, (and something else).

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

#420

Post by pointsmissed »

zimpenfish wrote: post #411
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…

> obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign By "doing their jobs", you presumably mean "responding to an emergency call", right? Because, e.g., cops in normal transit from A to B are "doing their jobs" but letting them drive through a "no vehicles allowed" park in that instance is probably bad. Or if they're on a high-speed chase - definitely "doing their jobs" b…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN