Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

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…

Given the spiel at the beginning about how this place is different from where I live and that in this place, there are no rules which trump the park's rules, I can't agree that it's obvious that police, ambulances, and fire trucks obviously don't have to follow the rules. To me, it seems that the framing all but says that they do.

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

#482

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 drivi…

> If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals... If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police

It doesn't matter, the rules on police and emergency vehicles usually supersede some local rule about a park.

The park is not some absolute ruler of the land, sure it can put rules for general/everyday use but a lot of things are rules at higher levels

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

#484
post #23

What this highlights is that online we have lost - or at least eroded - social norms. If I see a sign that says "no vehicles allowed", it's obvious they don't mean wagons and strollers. In almost all cases the police and the public are 99% in sync. Online, though, the moderators are forced to do a careful study of every action and become asinine literalists lest a horde of boundary-pushers ruin it for everyone.

two people are tried for the exact same crime, the lawyers used the same responses, questions, etc. all the discovery and testimonials are equal. The only thing different is the judge, jury, defendant, prosecutor, and defendants lawyer.

could one of these people be acquitted but the other not? Say if one committed the crime so did the other, ie everything being equal except personality and demeanor of key players.

not everything is black and white.

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

#485
In the olden days of internet forums we would consider this type of thing rules lawyering [1]. The rules were put in place to protect the community from trouble makers and trolls.

The main forum I frequented has a dispute resolution area where people could appeal infractions. It was full of people arguing about this type of stuff over something as trivial as a week long ban from some topic forum. Occasionally there would be an over zealous mod too.

Interestingly while the moderation of increasingly large and consolidated online communities becomes more automated and inflexible I’ve noticed that attitudes to rules around our public spaces have eroded into pure selfishness.

It seems there is nowhere people won’t drive and abandon their cars. Cycle tracks, footpaths (sidewalks) grass verges, parks, playing fields etc. it seems that this is simply accepted.

I’ve seen police and private security lazily patrol around parks where vehicles are not allowed in their cars. There’s no appetite for a physical on foot presence. You rarely see police on the street. The exception was during Biden’s recent visit to Dublin, there was literally a Garda on every street corner for a week.

Our local sports club patrons abandon their cars all over the grass area at the entrance to the local park when there is a half full car park right across the road.

Outside our local supermarket people will leave their cars on the footpath outside the store rather than park in a space mere metres away.

All of this is confounded by a police force (Irish Gardai) that don’t seem to give a damn.

I argued with a guy on Thursday who drove down a segregated cycle lane and up onto the footpath so he could leave his car right outside the house he was visiting. He saw nothing wrong with it. Only when I pointed out the kids trying to get around his car did he finally show some shame for his behaviour. I was furious.

Car brain is a growing problem.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer

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

#486
I’m not sure the sign can have one unanimous understanding - which is why we have court rulings to back it up. If you disagree with a sign, take it up with “contemporary society”.

But given a situation where no proper trial is available, the sign could mean “anything”.

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

#487
post #184
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I crazy/dumb or is the chart super confusing? I really had to stare at it to figure out how to read it, and I'm still just guessing the vertical scale is percent of the whole that think each item is a car. But also I got 11% here.

I agree. This has to be the worst, most unintentionally confusing graph I've ever seen. And I don't solely blame this website because many people make this mistake too: For crying out loud, how can you make the simple mistake of not labeling your axis? People online who make graphs—stop not labeling your axes! It's the whole point of the graph! And 11%, why is everyone getting 11%? Is it a backend error? Who knows! I…

I answered that 4 were vehicles (contra OP, I included the tank), and still got 11%. I think there must be some issue with the calculation.

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

#488

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…

In my country ambulances are allowed to run red lights, but not speeding. Actually they have their own rules that allow speeding in certain roads if the are in an emergency over their own limit: they are limited to 90 kmh in the motorway, but can go up to 120kmh, like any other car, in an emergency. Over that, they could potentially get a ticket. But AFAIK they can never go over the limits a normal car has.

When I read "obviously" in your parent comment, I though: well, not so obvious. We don't know why the vehicles are banned from this park (extreme cases: there are vehicle mines remains from a war that explodes under big weights. Park is built so ir can't stand so much weight and big vehicles would get trapped), so maybe police and ambulances must proceed on foot for the last hundred meters.

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

#489

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 drivi…

>Now you're assuming the intent.

That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules.

Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too small or that the government is incompetent and can't enforce the fines. I disagree, I think Turkey is a chaotic society because rules are not built around intent. Did you know that up until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures?

For the first few months until I got my white collar job, I did some part time jobs in London as a waiter etc. and worked at some high end venues and hotels. In these places there are some equipments(like climate control of the wine cellar) which are operated through control panels which are accessible to everyone and they didn't put signs that say "don't touch", instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this". They were able to keep curious hands away from buttons that shouldn't be pushed by those who don't know what they are doing by simply emphasising the intent.

Intent is extremely important, in fact everything is about intent. Every human action is with an intent. Great UX is built by designing around intent.

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

Except the blurb at the start clearly says there are no exemptions. The only rule is "no vehicles in the park". So all you're judging is 1.) is it a vehicle? and 2.) is it in the park?
Post reply on HN