Prigozhin rolls his tanks through the park on his way to Moscow. Does he violate the rule?
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
551–560 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#552I'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…
In Europe our driver education contains a legal definition of a vehicle (and motor vehicle). You'll find almost all parks with drivable roads will have a clear definition at the entrance what's allowed and what isn't.
If in Europe there was a sign that says "no vehicles", that disallows skateboards and bicycles too. Signs will always make it clear if they mean "motor vehicles".
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game was pretty clear that the question was not if it "should be allowed to violate the rule", but if it violates the rule in the first place.
Does something violate the rule if it’s allowed based on common sense? I don’t think so.
Depends on the definition of "common sense".
I've heard it said that common sense is just what naive people assume is obvious.
I'm not sure about that but I do know that people often disagree on what is and isn't common sense.
I guess this is why English Common Law works. We use precedence to argue about how the words of the law should be interpreted and at least try to flush out ambiguity.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#554So much talk about the rule but not much about enforcement. To me most of the scenarios are breaking the rule, but what happens afterwards depends: emergency vehicles, wheelchairs, toys get a pass. Bicycles either get a pass or a warning. Cars get a fine. Repeat offenders get a license suspension etc.
The gray areas are settled based on local culture and who is enforcing the rule. And it’s the same with moderation of course.
The rule is more like a guideline anyway.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#555I don't see this as a good way to get the point across. I perceived it like this:
1. This is a game, here are the rules, remember, it's not about intent, as in "should this vehicle be allowed?", it's strictly about the rules, i.e. "is it a vehicle" && "is it in the park?".
2. Look at how difficult content moderation is, people said the ambulance should not be allowed in the park!
While I agree that content moderation is difficult, prefacing it with a rigged game that primes people to make bad judgements is not a good argument.
(Personally, I would like every rule to come with the justifications/reasoning behind it, so I could make the decision to break it more easily, e.g. if wilderness areas had the rules "No mechanized or motorized equipment shall be used" annotated with "It's about the noise" then an electric wheelchair would be fine, but not a loud drone etc.)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#556For most of the more down-to-earth questions, I made the distinction between something that aids a human in moving by augmenting their analog output, and something that either doesn't require much human involvement to move or supplants it entirely.
Skateboards, rollerskates, wheelchairs, bikes, wagons, parachutes etc.. require constant human involvement to keep acting as a vehicle. Horses, cars, space stations don't really require the same involvement, or aren't necessarily exclusively human transporters, and toy boats are only facsimiles of vehicles.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
think the fundamental difference is that “vehicle” can be broken down into a number of concrete subcategories that cover the vast majority of vehicles that people use in practice, while “hate speech” and “speech glorifying violence” are often very nebulous and hard to define. It's true that “vehicle” can be vague, but it's also true that in many contexts it's well-defined. The very common ”no entry for vehicular traf…
I don’t know why we insist on pretending that there’s no way to figure out what counts as “hate speech” or “glorifying violence”. If you look on any social network you’ll find you can report people for saying things that clearly fall under those categories. Like if you’re calling someone a slur, or threatening them, or telling them to kill themselves, those are all pretty clearly out of bounds! And, I mean, to be cle…
> I don’t know why we insist on pretending that there’s no way to figure out what counts as “hate speech” or “glorifying violence”.
what if this was a forum that rebels to the gov't are using to discuss how they will form the revolution? Is that now disallowed, because what they discuss could be considered hate speech?
What if this group of rebels (or freedom fighters as they call it) is someone you personally want to support?
What if this group are labeled terrorists by other governments?
It's not so black and white tbh. It's only black and white when you imagine yourself to be the authority.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 allow…
Ignoring the fact that many of the corner crossing cases were bad faith arguments by landowners intentionally attempting to abuse the situation, I don't think anyone would argue that the park boundary is a prism that extends vertically to infinity.
So where do you draw the line?
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#559Cool game, but let me comment on the method of detecting bias based on names... I think it'll only work for audiences that recognise these names in a way that triggers those biases. So it'll not be very useful for outside US.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#560Earlier 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'?
Depends on how you word the question. If you say the helicopter is flying 10 feet over the park, by the rules of this game it's objectively not a violation. If you say it's 10 feet above the ground inside the park, objectively a violation.