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

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

#491

Post by gorgoiler » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:08 AM UTC

RheingoldRiver wrote: post #465

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,…

What, exactly, is the graph showing? % of people who said "Yes this is a vehicle in the park" or % of people who agree with you ? It's very difficult to tell as I said yes only to the car and the memorial...

Your first interpretation is correct. No one thinks a kite is a vehicle. Everyone thinks a private car is a vehicle. Everything else is in between.

If your answers were consistent with a consistent population, there would be a threshold above which all your bars turn red. Any churn in that consistency (my last six bars are a mixture of red and green) shows a deviation of some kind, but I don’t know how this accounts for when there is no overall consistency and everyone disagrees.

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

#492

Post by jstanley » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:11 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #445

torton wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this take. Most questions were very obvious when thought about from the angle of "what is the intent of the rule", which is likely to be "let people enjoy the park by not allowing large, noisy, smelly conveyances". Bikes, kites, monuments, Radio Flyers, etc. do not violate the intent. A tank is clearly a vehicle but doesn't violate the intent because it does not interfere with people enjoying the park. A…

Bikes do annoy people with small children because some people try to ride bikes fast where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

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

#493

Post by zharknado » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:11 AM UTC

gh02t wrote: post #137

bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

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.

Given that “kite” is the lowest and “Honda civic” is the highest, I’m assuming the bar chart shows % of people who classified it as a violation, regardless of color. For me, the last three are red, and they are also the only ones above 50%. To me that means I agreed with the majority 100% of the time.

But it says I had 11% agreement with the majority.

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

#494

Post by fouronnes3 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:12 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.

I agree with this obviously, but I feel quite strongly that you must answer "Yes, this violates the rule" to the emergency vehicles questions, because the rules of the game at the beginning clearly stated that you should answer about the violation itself, not about whether it should be allowed.

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

#495

Post by barrkel » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:13 AM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #492

barrkel wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes do annoy people with small children because some people try to ride bikes fast where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

Parks should not be inappropriate places for children.

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

#496

Post by kristjansson » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:13 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #404

willsmith72 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

Allow me to introduce you to the dictionary[0] Vehicle (noun) 1. a means of carrying or transporting something ...such as ... a: motor vehicle ... b: a piece of mechanized equipment 2 : an agent of transmission : carrier 3: a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed ---------------- You're thinking of specifically a __motorized__ vehicle. Which is a different thing than "vehicle". I think y…

“No rhetorical vehicles in the park” is … quite the interpretation

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

#497

Post by chii » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:14 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #482

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> supersede some local rule

aka, there's some other rule that isn't listed then?

Which isn't what is being discussed here.

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

#498

Post by fwlr » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:14 AM UTC

Fascinating thought experiment! For a version two, I would love to see:

• more ambiguous examples (instead of “there are 27 examples, you only need to answer 7”, I would instead just offer 7 examples and on 7th say “stop now, or keep answering?”, then do the same “stop or keep going” prompt after 27 for the extra examples)

• three answer options: “yes, it’s a violation”, “no, it’s not a violation”, and “it is a violation but it should be exempt / permitted / not prosecuted”

• perhaps this third answer could also have a text box to enter your own epicycle / rule addition. The next time that person answers “yes but exempt”, they can select their previous epicycle as the explanation this time as well, or add a new one. Coalescing each user’s epicycles into a coherent set of “common sense exceptions” might be tedious, though

The third answer option, and the reveal that what you thought were obvious exceptions are not statistically agreed to be obvious exceptions, helps a ton with making the point about content moderation more, well, pointed. Adding epicycle text boxes takes it in a bit of a different direction, highlighting the complicated nebulosity hiding beneath simple rules.

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

#499

Post by ohgodplsno » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:17 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…

It's also an awfully simplistic vision of moderation/rules, whereas the answer in real life should be "it depends". Should an emergency vehicle be allowed through the park? Yes. As another comment says, is there a known risk about things collapsing in the park? Guess what, that kind of stuff is either displayed prominently at the entrance, or told in advance to the few people that might legitimately have to go through the park.

Simple solutions do not apply to such an extremely complex as human behaviour. In the same way, moderation can not rely on simple, inflexible rules. Yes, sometimes you're gonna ban someone who's just skirting them. Yes, a few dumbasses are going to complain. Ignore them, ban then too, whatever.

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

#500

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 7:18 AM UTC

willsmith72 wrote: post #378

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

Skateboard is harder.

But in many many jurisdiction bicycles is explicitly a vehicle. One that people over certain age cannot drive on sidewalks and must use road. Or designated ways. Ofc, it is also banned in some places.

Also it sometimes acts unlike pedestrian like having to yield to cars when crossing safety crossings.