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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by mandmandam »

raphman wrote: post #528
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…

I think we are all proving the author's point here. For my decisions, the assumed intent of the rule was slightly different than yours: no potentially fast-moving objects that might cause severe accidents. So: no cars, no bikes, no skateboards. RC toy cars with low mass are okay. Rowing boats are not okay because they might harm swimming people. The surfboard on the beach is okay because it is not moving fast within…

Absolutely.

And we're showing why the author is correct: because a lot of people jump to conclusions, hold fast to their assumptions, and assume everyone else thinks like them; even after having had it all clearly explained with a tailor-made interactive game, and even in the face of abundant direct evidence to the contrary.

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

#592

Post by AtlasBarfed »

josefx wrote: post #413
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard. You have to understand a "park" is usually primarily some pseudo-preserve of nature, with varying degrees of permitted human recreational uses. That is what a "park" actually means. Users of parks generally know there will be varying usage rules for the park based on the park. But generally speaking, things that will destroy the "natural perserved" aspects, things that will disrupt other people us…

> There are people with authoritative knowledge, and you ask them the questions, and they give a "yes or no". Given that there have been many cases of lawmakers not understanding the impact of their own laws. Contracts unraveled by punctuation errors, complex interactions between rules, people managing parks often not being the same as people writing the rules, ... . I find this claim to be completely removed from re…

If you are unsure if some activity or "vehicle" is allowed in a given park, you would not call the effing park to see if it is allowed?

That is divorced from reality?

Do you NEVER ask people that "know things" a question? Or do you just trust ChatGPT for everything?

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

#594

Post by pyb »

Ruarl wrote: post #501
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 i…

Yes, but then the experiment kinda proves the opposite of the point it was trying to prove. As it were, people largely agree with each other as to what's reasonable and what is not.

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

#596

Post by Panoramix »

dmattia wrote: post #230
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…

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…

I don't understand. If you walk into an establishment and ask for a sandwich, and they bring you any of the items you listed, you and me and everyone would be upset and confused. So no they are not sandwiches.

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

#597

Post by Panoramix »

Panoramix wrote: post #596
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…

I don't understand. If you walk into an establishment and ask for a sandwich, and they bring you any of the items you listed, you and me and everyone would be upset and confused. So no they are not sandwiches.

Ok, I wrote "any" but I think the one with bread in the middle would be accepted by most (club sandwich). Can't edit on this app..

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

#598

Post by vidarh »

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.

The instructions specifically tell you to disregard any unstated assumptions about exceptions for special vehicles.

So in this way you have just illustrated the authors point.

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

#600

Post by OtomotO »

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…

That's why you add a "why" in any rule or law.

If you add this, you clarify the intent and can meaningfully declare exceptions like "no rules in the park because people come here to relax. Of course if a vehicle is necessary to e.g. stop a wildfire or stop a criminal from shooting people, a vehicle is more than welcome"

Post reply on HN