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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by mrtksn »

sokoloff wrote: post #732
mrtksn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures? That contains its own embedded example. “This music is not being performed 1 hour after midnight; it is being performed 23 hours before midnight.”

It was a range

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

#742

Post by jeroen »

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…

Content moderation is hard. Analogies are also hard.

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

#743

Post by mhandley »

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…

I answered the same way as you. Because there are rules and there are laws. The only reason park rules have any weight is in a larger context of laws. So, if the only park rule is "no vehicles in the park", then clearly the rule is violated by an emergency vehicle, but it will be that larger context that determines whether anyone cares if the rule was violated.

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

#744

Post by AlexTFish »

mryijum wrote: post #602
jstanley wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the blurb at the start clearly says there are no exemptions. The only rule is "no vehicles in the park". So all you're judging is 1.) is it a vehicle? and 2.) is it in the park?

Yeah, I actually thought that the phrasing of the blurb weighted the answers in a particular direction, and was surprised to discover that most did not answer questions about emergency vehicles as violating the rule. To quote specifically, it says "...please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)." In fact, it sort of seems like this sentence should wreck the…

To me it looks like the emergency vehicles are counted as violating the rules by about 60% of players? Which I assume is meant in the sense of "yes, this technically breaks the rules, but we assume they had good reason to (because they were following higher-scope rules)".

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

#745

Post by hyperhopper »

chii wrote: post #497
raverbashing wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals... If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police It doesn't matter, the rules on police and emergency vehicles usually supersede some local rule about a park. The park is not some absolute ruler of the land, sure it can put rules for general/everyday use but a lot of things…

> supersede some local rule aka, there's some other rule that isn't listed then? Which isn't what is being discussed here.

Yes, you're assuming that this is a jurisdiction where police or ambulances have authority over local rules

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

#746

Post by [deleted] »

goodpoint wrote: post #727
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

No "they are allowed to break the rule" is legally speaking nonsense.

[deleted]

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

#747

Post by nonethewiser »

schoen wrote: post #548
nonethewiser wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There is a clear majority in the answers. Sure, there are edge cases, but they are edge cases. But I also want to say this is a really cool website. I love how he used this experience to set the table for what is otherwise essentially a blog post. Very cool. But to hone in a bit more: > It was about content moderation. Specifically, some people think that there could be simple rules for Internet content that…

> Once you stop using moderation to implicitly endorse speech you aren't as responsible for anything that is said. This is the entire point of section 230. Are you suggesting that section 230 is meant to discourage Internet intermediaries from moderation? The original intent of this law was to stop requiring intermediaries to choose between adopting a passive conduit role and having legal responsibility for content.…

If you take moderation far enough you become a publisher

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

#748

Post by XorNot »

noduerme wrote: post #668
mrtksn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Two things really jump out at me.. I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of an…

As an Australian it is news to me that we are obsessed with obeying "tiny guidelines".

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

#749

Post by specialist »

From the OC:

> You might think you can add enough epicycles to your rules to avoid this problem. ... can reduce the problem, but [cannot] eliminate it. And at scale, with adversarial testing, every edge case will get hit.

Yup. Rules are not enough.

Same conundrum applies to taxation, safety regulations, pollution, security, etc.

It's not just a matter of better enforcement. Every system of rules will be gamed.

Alas, I still don't have a clue about solutions. I'm just exhausted by the naive hot takes.

Human affairs (societies) are messy.

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

#750

Post by mannykannot »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435
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…

> 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…

Without assumptions - such as what 'in the park' actually means - most of the cases are simply undecidable.

This should not be taken to mean that every rule must be fully, rigorously and unambiguously specified, as this would bring an end to human discourse.

Intent is often an appropriate basis for disambiguating rules like this.

Post reply on HN