Unfortunately, "You agreed with the majority: 11%" tells me fucking nothing leaves me with far more questions. 11% of what?
I got 11% too and wondered what it means.
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
621–630 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#622Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#623I'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 crystal clear until it's not. In the UK a bicycle is, rightly so, considered a vehicle. I know this, but I'd guess many British people do not. I also understand why bicycles are considered vehicles and, when on my bike, tend to follow the spirit of rules and designs that appear to prohibit vehicles.
I would not ride in the park, but would walk my bike in the park. I'd be breaking the rules but adhering to the spirit of them.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#624Earlier 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…
So no one can bring their legs into the park, as they are a means of transporting things? "Carrier" is also a very broad term, no human carrying anything is allowed in the park then.
I know this is a "gotcha" comment, but it actually only adds to the author's point: language is fuzzy and imprecise. Moreso, that we assume it has far higher precision than it actually does.
We can think of communication as having 3 main components. 1) the intended concept being intended to convey. This is in the person's head. 2) The fuzzy compression mode (language) that is used to convey said thought. Be that words, writing, or interpretive dance. 3) The fuzzy decoder that turns the language into a thought in another being's head. This is filled with priors and assumptions that fill in many of the gaps.
The thing about this is that we usually learn to speak in pretty localized groups, meaning that our priors align and we have a lot of good faith (attempting to interpret intent rather than interpreting the words). But with a larger audience we have higher variance that makes what is obvious a priori a disastrous outcome. "Everybody knows" is not something everyone knows. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way. For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle…
Sounds like the railway staff are indeed enforcing the spirit of the law by allowing mobility scooters on the platform. If I had to guess why your tricycle was not allowed it's because the staff perceive your tricycle as a potentially very fast moving obstacle on the platform which the mobility scooter obviously is not. They are probably more concerned about the safety of others than yourself when they apply that rul…
When visibly travelling at the same speed as pedestrians (… even when there are no pedestrians around!), and still insisting when you explain why dismounting is worse for everyone? No, it’s simply applying the rule because it’s a rule. The Protective Services Officers (cut-rate policemen) that are enforcing these sorts of rules are seldom interested in nuance.
On another occasion I was fined by PSOs for walking along beside the railway line, along a route that I understood to be a public right of way and which was not in any way blocked save an easily-walked-around vehicle barrier at the far end that they’d installed in the last year or so, and which our family and others had been traversing since before I was born. But no, they’d decided that wasn’t allowed any more, didn’t actually tell the locals, and ignored the explanation and an expressed willingness to not do it again (and the appeals process declined to listen too). I suspect and hope that regular police would have listened and just issued a warning to not use that route any more.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#626I'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 will say an ambulance or police car in the park does break the rule.
It is fine to break the rule sometimes though.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is about moderation, I've ran a short experiment asking the first 7 questions to GPT 4 to test a theory: https://chat.openai.com/share/87c7df76-c693-4446-b8ce-817ac5... It fully agrees with the majority interpretation in all cases despite the rule being minimal and requires taking the inferred intent into account. LLMs for machine moderation are probably rolling out very soon, I doubt Reddit and the l…
Yes, let's have chatgpt-5 decide what I can or cannot write, what a capital idea.
I mean why not? Automoderator bots are already a thing on reddit and work reasonably well with just simple fuzzy string matching. If one can appeal to a human as a last resort when edge cases occur I don't really see a problem. If anything it'll have a few orders of magnitude less false positives.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#628Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
[deleted]
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#630Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, the question asks "does it violate the rule" not "should the vehicle be allowed in the park". Of course driving an ambulance into the park violates the rule - but it's ok the break the rule for emergencies! Which of course illustrates that in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply. Especially in content moderation.
The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then i…
When you jump, do you leave the park? If you jump really high? Or are flung via trebuchet?