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

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Post by Helmut10001 »

carstenhag wrote: post #440
Helmut10001 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also got 11%, but I only selected 3 answers that did _not_ violate the rule: The matchbox toy car, the ISS, (and something else).

This entire thing is showing that people have different interpretations, you can't resort to "that did _not_ violate the rule" to say that it's super obvious and the only answer.

I phrased my answer a bit difficult. What I meant was exactly that, instead of stoplisting a few items, like most people appear to have done, I allow-listed only a few (which is emphasizing the fact that vastly different interpretations exist).

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

#613

Post by sedatk »

subarctic wrote: post #307
Reki wrote: post #301

Jim backs his RV into the park. He does so without his vehicle entering the park. Pam comes to the park and begins to live in Jim's RV. Bob, an alien, lands his spaceship in the park and initiates first contact. Tim, a pipercub pilot, lands his plane in the park after suffering an engine failure. Sam rides the subway home underneath the park. Jordan, a maintenance worker, repairs a broken light in the park from his c…

>Jim backs his RV into the park. He does so without his vehicle entering the park. He backs his RV into the park? That means his RV enters the park, right? What does the V stand for in RV?

They’d probably meant a trailer.

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

#614

Post by Ruarl »

pyb wrote: post #594
Ruarl wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was not how I interpreted the results. Nor the discussion elsewhere on this page where some people included skateboards and bicycles under "vehicle" and some did not.

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

#615

Post by noduerme »

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…

the child in the electric toy car is probably the real dividing line on the question of what is a "vehicle"... the ISS orbiting is the line on what is "in the park"... and the police car in an emergency is where you're supposed to bend the definition of the word "allowed".

I think the answer to the survey is "I want to talk to my lawyer".

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

#616

Post by usrusr »

koolba wrote: post #255
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…

> Is a pizza folded in half a sandwich? If you don’t cut it, no. If you cut it at the fold, yes. Now what if the pizza crust is toasted enough that, while it was not your intent, it breaks evenly at the seam during the act of folding it in half, and then you proceed to collapse the two halves before taking a bite. Did you have a sandwich for lunch?

If you gnaw off the fold, does the remaining part become a sandwich? If you bite off a piece that excludes the fold, does it become sandwich in the mouth? Fascinating mystery, right up there with the transubstration in that cannibal religion!

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

#617

Post by GTP »

Qwertious wrote: post #400
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…

>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…

> The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal right to speed and run red lights in an emergency, and cops obviously have a right to trespass.

I think this is just a way of saying that they are not breaking the rule, simply because the rule doesn't apply to them.

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

#618

Post by teew »

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…

> police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

The question was not about whether the rule ought to be followed, but whether it was violated. Content moderation can work under these circumstances, too.

The setup in the beginning even tries to take the ought out of the deliberations: "Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated. You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules [...]" an even goes on to mention other sources of norms. It explicitly then says: "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

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

#619

Post by vidarh »

clhodapp wrote: post #481
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…

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.

Police, ambulances and fire trucks are if anything some of the clearest violations. They are unambiguously vehicles. They are unambiguously entering the park.

It was really surprising to me how many so explicitly ignored the instructions for them.

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

#620

Post by sethammons »

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.

I got 11% - did anyone not get 11%?

I also couldn't see two different colors on my dimmed phone display until I zoomed way in. I'm not even colorblind.

Post reply on HN