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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by Ruarl »

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…

Wasn't the point of the experiment not that you could come up with answers that seemed sensible to you, but that different people came up with different answers that seemed sensible to them? I too felt the line was fairly clear in this case, but I was very surprised that others thought differently.

It isn't mentioned in the discussion on the results page, but one facet of effective moderation this shines a light on is as follows: each of us may find the moderation task easy, but few (or none) of us would be a moderator who would be universally trusted.

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

#502

Post by otherme123 »

emmelaich wrote: post #277
hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I even disagree that there was any nuance. I wasn't told "you're doing content moderation, there's a rule, the rule is violated but there could be some mitigating circumstances, do you allow the content?". I was told: is there a vehicle in the park, and I said yes because a police car is a vehicle and it's in the park.

I agree that the police car is a vehicle and and it is a violation. That's the easiest reading. In a real example, though, there'd be law or authority quoted, and you can be sure that's there would be an exception for emergency vehicles. That doesn't change the meaning of the sign in isolation.

Could be an exception... or not. Some prohibitions come from hazards like "this won't hold your weight" or "this could flood unexpectedly". And there's no emergency vehicle exceptions.

I had my closest park in mind when answering. It has a river and multiple wooden bridges to access. Also, the ground floods sometimes in the winter and some paths are too soft for a car. No way an ambulance or firetruck is going to get in the park. They could try, but would loss more time than doing it on foot, or a bridge would collapse under their weight.

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

#503

Post by qnpnp »

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…

You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.

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

#504

Post by raverbashing »

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…

By this rule I can't bring a newspaper into the park

> 3. a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed

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

#505

Post by kccqzy »

meghan_rain wrote: post #366
kccqzy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social norms are quite culture-specific. Online people from all countries and cultures interact, and that's where some misunderstandings come from. It's not a big problem if everyone is civil and existing moderation mechanisms aren't overwhelmed; people quickly learn from online faux pas and the online social norm is restored.

> Social norms are quite culture-specific. This is an argument against migration then.

It's not. Nowhere did I say or imply that.

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

#506

Post by raverbashing »

qnpnp wrote: post #503
raverbashing wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.

Correct. But you (and the experimenter) are assuming that rules exist in a vacuum, which in practice it isn't

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

#507

Post by hkt »

mrtksn wrote: post #489
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…

>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 smal…

This is exactly why criminal law requires two things: the actus reus and the mens rea. Act and intent.

So, great point.

I guess the only problem on the internet is it is very hard to determine intent, see Poe's law.

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

#508

Post by chii »

fvdessen wrote: post #453
godelski wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are shoes a vehicle ?

are the shoes carrying you? Or are you carrying the shoe?

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

#509

Post by movpasd »

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…

What I find really amusing is that the top comment (yours) is about how obvious the interpretation of the rules is, but there are dozens of subcomments disagreeing with your interpretation and each insisting how obvious their own interpretation is... exactly like with content moderation ;)

In my view, there's always an obvious initial purpose and interpretation (the Honda Civic), and you always have those that will pedantically insist on the most literal Draconian interpretation (the ISS), then you have those who stretch the rules to fit their agenda (bikes), but, most importantly, you have some class of common edge cases which spark significant disagreement (emergency services), even if we all agree on 90% of the point (which is that yes, emergency services should be able to drive through the park during an emergency, regardless of whether the rule is broken).

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

#510

Post by aerio »

natch wrote: post #337
dmattia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author should have made the statement "A sandwich is an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them". And then asked questions like: - Is a grilled cheese a sandwich? - Is two pieces of bread with a third piece of bread in the middle a sandwich? - Is a hotdog a sandwich? - Is a taco a sandwich? - Is a breadbowl a sandwich? - Is a poptart a sandwich? - Is…

More split than what? Only 11% agreed with my correct answers. Seems pretty split to me and I can only see the results for one person.

Ah, a fellow member of the elite 11%!

Now, I wonder which specific items we agreed on, if any.

Post reply on HN