671–680 of 1001 posts
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'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…
> 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…
That would be a terrible phrasing then. It should have been phrased something like "Landslide hazard, no weight more than 1ton allowed anywhere in the park." or something in that vein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just made me look up the rules in germany. The wording is somewhat particular. "An emergency vehicle following a higher cause can invoke special rights ("Sonderrechte") indicated by blue flashing lights. These special rights authorize the driver of the vehicle to divert from the regular traffic laws as long as done safely." Interestingly, this is separate from the "Right of the way", which can be ordered on top u…
> which can be ordered on top using a siren. This is why they need to run the siren for 2ish seconds before running a red light for example. Pretty sure that's because people need time to notice the siren and take appropriate action, not because of some rule
I did not consider for a moment whether the emergency situations should have exceptions made. I feel this is at the wrong place to do so. It’s a separate question to me to ask if it’s OK to break rules during emergencies. I really appreciated the creator’s point, which is to contradict the widely held belief among some people that regardless of opinion, there can be one and only one factual determination. It all depends on a dependency chain of definitions, even before you get into the questions like when it is ok to break the rules.
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'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…
Is it just because that way you can feel smart having “solved“ the game? Or do you think there’s a moral imperative to say an ambulance isn’t breaking a rule even in an abstract word game? Do you understand abstraction, and that this isn’t really about a park?
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…
Most likely true. But to me the answer for the question itself is not about whether the rule can be overridden by any other rules. It’s purely about the rule itself.
The intro supports this:
> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
There is a difference between a rule being violated, and whether the violation of the rule is allowed. Like they say in that intro text.
Therefore, all of the examples with police motor vehicles and ambulance motor vehicles are to be answered as being in violation of the rule.
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…
Also the questions have dubious intent.
Does something violate the rule? Some times they do and sometimes we need to understand if that's acceptable or fix what made this rule to be broken.
But I think many people interpret the question as "should it be allowed"
Also, I don't get how this is supposed to help anyone understand content moderation. Take any court case and you'll have similar questions: it's more like playing judge than like playing moderator. Moderation is way harder because you can offend people on both sides at once, and they'll leave your community. In this park scenario, the people being passed judgement on can't move to another park with two clicks of the mouse and take a bunch of friends with them, and the park's sole appeal is not the existence of other people in it (network effect) the way that it is for online communities. Another difference is that people rarely get angry with the judge as much as with the law and politician that made it, which again puts you in a rather different position than in actual moderation.
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…
> obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign Most likely true. But to me the answer for the question itself is not about whether the rule can be overridden by any other rules. It’s purely about the rule itself. The intro supports this: > You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please dis…
A horse is not a vehicle. A horse is a horse, of course.