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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by paulclinger »

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,…

I only selected one "yes" answer (the car), but still got 11%, so not sure what this may mean.

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

#432

Post by ckolkey »

oezi wrote: post #412
semiquaver wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is a violation. I guess from my perspective it was a justified violation of the rule, but it was still a violation

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

#433

Post by ckolkey »

patmcc wrote: post #357
pix128 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

Through, no question. If someone in the park is able to interact with it, you're in it.

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

#434

Post by jrockway »

monocasa wrote: post #231
jrockway wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO,…

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.

That's how you see it, but not how most people see it. The "corner crossing" lawsuit got a LOT of coverage on Hacker News. Landowners claimed that merely floating over their property was trespassing. The courts disagreed.

Trust me, if there weren't any laws, people would be shooting down airplanes above their farms, or at the very least, writing a lot of angry letters to the FAA. The laws that we have right now allowing the freedom of air travel were hard-won and unpopular among those affected.

Therefore, the park in this exercise would mostly like try and shoot down the International Space Station, or else risk the reputation of not being strict against surfers carrying surfboards. It's exactly the same thing.

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

#435

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

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

Now you're assuming the intent.

The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle driving there could cause a landslide that topples the vehicle over the cliff and could kill anyone on the beach below. No vehicles in the park.

But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them. If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals, and the local police are your buddies, you say they haven't violated the rule because the intent isn't to apply to emergency vehicles. If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police, now they're violating the rule and you can come up with something like the park isn't in their jurisdiction.

It's the same rule. It's the same action. The only difference is if you like them or not. And that's the problem.

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

#436

Post by carstenhag »

Qwertious wrote: post #400
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 ri…

See, even there for me it's rather a "firefighters/police have an exemption to the rules". For you it's "firefighters/police are breaking the rule but it's fine".

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

#437

Post by barrkel »

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…

It's clear that the rule is broken by emergency vehicles. Whether they need to follow the rule is a different question and not the one asked.

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

#438

Post by hunter2_ »

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.

The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then it's "in" the park, but if it's not making contact with the ground then it's "above" the park.

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

#440

Post by carstenhag »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #418
mint2 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This entire thing is showing that people have different interpretations, you can't resort to "that did _not_ violate the rule" to say that it's super obvious and the only answer.
Post reply on HN