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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by laurentlb »

chii wrote: post #519
koolba wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

so an open-face sandwich is technically not a sandwich in your definition then! Even tho it's in the name!

It depends on the language. For me personally, I see "open-face sandwich" as a naming mistake in English.

Similarly, the list of berries is not the same as the list of fruit ending with "*berry".

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

#642

Post by atchoo »

jstummbillig wrote: post #635
atchoo wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules I think the ambiguity here is not what the rule means, but what "breaking the rules" means. IMHO it should have been phrased as "would you refuse entry to" i.e. whether you would enforce action based on the rule. If you would not bar entry to emergency vehicles, that would be the same as what others mean by "not breaking the rules" i.e. it…

The instructions read: > Every question is about a hypothetical park. The park has a rule: "No vehicles in the park." Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated. Violation of a rule is a logical operation. It's the answer that comes before the ", but ..." part. Things you explicitly don't have to do in the context of this game: - You don't have to like the rule - You don't have to consider exemptions (be…

"break" / "violate" have same semantic ambiguity. You can't separate language from the rest of one's comprehension of the world e.g. most would probably agree that in general, "a rule" cannot prevent someone from saving a life. Overriding moral necessity is built into the understanding of the limitations of "a rule". It's implicit and does not need to be spelled out explicitly.

When you face this sort of thing in philosophy, the clarifying step is to move past language and look at behaviour which would be the enforcement.

> You just need to answer, if the rule has been violated

You can't dismiss ambiguity with a "you just need to"!

In conventional language we get the ambiguity expressed as distinctions like "technically you have a broken a rule but..." i.e. there are "technical" interpretations of rules that are specific/pedantic/unrealistic that in practice are not what is meant or enforced.

I expect there will be a desire here to over value "technical" interpretations as if they were more accurate having stripped cultural conventions and such but that is a means to misinterpret language not find truth.

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

#643

Post by godelski »

raverbashing wrote: post #504
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…

By this rule I can't bring a newspaper into the park > 3. a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed

A "gotcha" comment, but that only adds to the author's point. Which luckily this wasn't one of the examples. Though see back to my comment about the items I said no for (that aren't confused for being outside the part like the ISS)

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

#644

Post by [deleted] »

chii wrote: post #526
az226 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehm. I answered that the cop and ambulance were in violation of the rule, but it’s sometimes okay to break the rules. That doesn’t mean they didn’t break the rules — it means they were justified in breaking the rules.

in other words, there's two pieces here, 1) the rule, 2) the consequences of breaking the rule. It is agreed that the rule (1) is broken by emergency vehicles. It is unknown that (2) is in effect (it is not described in the scenario), but people would assume that there's no consequences for emergency vehicles breaking the rule.

[deleted]

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

#645

Post by hsjqllzlfkf »

kazinator wrote: post #289
hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That definition looks like it only applies to highways, whereas this exercise is much broader.

Did you look up the definition of "highway", or are you substituting your own? It's in there.

> highway "includes every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles"

By definition, a park where vehicles are forbidden is not a highway. Please don't act smarter than you are.

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

#646

Post by ilyt »

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…

> That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules.

Right but overly generic rules make that worse. And overly specific make a lot of work and allow stuff to still go thru cracks. It's hard problem to make following rules with intent but without rule-enforcers using it for their own whims

> 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 small or that the government is incompetent and can't enforce the fines. I disagree, I think Turkey is a chaotic society because rules are not built around intent. Did you know that up until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures

If the culture of the country teaches you to follow the rules, people follow the rules

If the culture of the country teaches you rules are annoyance to go around or bribe around, well that happens.

I live in post soviet country (Poland) and got on the end of the slow and painful transformation from the latter to the former. For example ~15 years ago it was common knowledge that you need to bribe examiner if you want to pass driving license the first time. At the time it was somewhat probable, I passed at 3rd time with 2nd time failure being my arrogance but 1st being something absolutely minor that could be summed up as "I looked at right mirror with my eyes instead of theatrically moving my head right to signal to examiner I really looked at right side'.

And my step-mother, which is a terrible driver did pass via bribe at around same time.

Similar thing happens with MOT tests, usually bribed to ignore lack of working cat.

And the single out cases of bribing still happened, just government invested a lot of effort to fight it so it is no longer "the norm" accepted by the people as the way to live. Which on top of being a lot of effort takes generational change to really root in, back in my parent's young days you couldn't even have a car if you weren't either well connected (grandpa had Wartburg with sunroof option purely because he was in military and won few contests) or bribed the right people.

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

#647

Post by Roark66 »

It sure was interesting. One gave me a bit of a pause. The rowboat... I immediately thought "a rowboat is not a vehicle (it's human powered), but how did he get the rowboat there in the first place?"

So in the end I only said yes to 4,the tank, the car and emergency vehicles. Everything else is a no in my book. I was quite surprised 90% people thought otherwise. No doubt their vehicle definition is different.

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

#648

Post by msla »

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 just think the vehicles-in-park rule is much, much, much clearer than many content moderation rules.

And as clear as it is, it can still be enforced selectively.

That's the point.

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

#649

Post by Sai_ »

I found that my responses hinged on the use of specific pronouns - e.g. “in” or “on” so a space station flying over a park wasn’t “in” the park per se - and on whether it was clear to me whether whether the park was being used a thoroughfare.

So, I found myself answering “not a vehicle” in a vast majority of the cases because it wasn’t clear to me if the tool in question - car or skateboard or whatever - was being used to go through the park to the other side.

Great thought exercise though.

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

#650

Post by ilyt »

mrtksn wrote: post #566
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced . Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.

Well, the consensus is that the no music after midnight rule was an attempt to squash the western lifestyle(it had serious impact on the livelihood of the musicians and the venues). At places where the rule was enforced people simply continue their night somewhere without live music. It made no sense in the context of Covid, it made sense in the context of islamist trying to destroy the non-islamists. Anyway, what's…

> Anyway, what's the difference between a rule and a guideline? Is a red light a rule or guide?

Guideline: don't bother neighbours after 20:00

Rule: Loud noises not allowed after 20:00

If you make sure to steer clear from guideline ("hey neighbour, we want to have a party, will it be okay if we be loud till 00:00","thanks"), the rules will not need to be enforced (neighbour calling the police to complain)

Post reply on HN