The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#751

Post by earlgray » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:08 PM UTC

whelp_24 wrote: post #702

earlgray wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100% with the spirit of your point and I think imagining a forced bet scenario can help to clarify things. There are three main concepts we want to interpret within the context of the phrasing of the rule: (1) the intended referrent of 'vehicle'; (2) the intended meaning of 'in' the park; (3) the actual intention of the rule regarding emergency vehicles. This is the scenario: imagine you're forced to wager a…

I think you would lose a lot of money. Bikes and skateboards alone are going to have tons of violations. Also, I feel like if i had to bet money, boats aren't going to be included unless specified in most but crucially not all circumstances.

If it's even odds then I expect it's a losing bet no matter what anyone writes down - that's why in the imagined scenario it's forced. The pertinent question isn't whether you expect to lose money by playing, it's whether you expect to lose less money by including non-motorised vehicles in your write-up than by excluding them.

Personally my instinct is that I'd lose more money by specifying skateboards and bikes as I've usually seen those addressed by their own signs rather than being included under "vehicle".

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

#752

Post by apricot » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:08 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #394

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…

An interesting way to go about this would be through revelation The rule is "no adult content" 1 A scholar is discussing their recently published contribution 2 as a professional sexologist 3 whose area of study is pornography 4 Ancient pornography 5 And how it relates to modern styles 6 of fiction literature and paintings 7 by quoting seedy passages of ancient erotic literate 8 written in ancient Sumerian Etc... Wit…

Surely I can't be the only one who imagined Homer Simpson going "that's good... that's bad" while reading that comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7osb78oZ9Z4

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

#753

Post by HWR_14 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:09 PM UTC

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…

There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. There was no mention of a medical emergency, just an EMT driving an ambulance. Police officers may or may not have jurisdiction in the area and there was no evidence the emergency was even a police matter. The EMT driving through the gate to watch the music festival, and the police officer driving through the park during mid-2020 (when the entire world had declared COVID an emergency) would both qualify.

And that doesn't even address the bigger issue that even if they were justified in breaking the rule, they were breaking the rule.

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

#754

Post by 88j88 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:11 PM UTC

Which is why there should be no moderators besides each person having an equal vote. "But then people game the system." is always the answer, which is always the root cause of the problem: on the internet, everything is completely fair until someone, inevitably, games the system.

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

#755

Post by SamWhited » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:13 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #753

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…

There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. There was no mention of a medical emergency, just an EMT driving an ambulance. Police officers may or may not have jurisdiction in the area and there was no evidence the emergency was even a police matter. The EMT driving through the gate to watch the music festival, and the police officer driving through the park during mid-202…

> There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job.

The prompts were: "In an emergency, Neil, an EMT, drives his ambulance into the park" and "In an emergency, Laurie, a police officer, drives her police car into the park."

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

#756

Post by apricot » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

I notice that people who say "obviously emergency vehicles should be allowed, because of intent", despite the explicit instructions at the beginning of the test, often talk about "the sign" in their comments, despite no sign ever being mentioned in the instructions.

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

#757

Post by jagged-chisel » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

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…

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

They are indeed violating the rule. Whether that rule is enforced against emergency vehicles is considered by the enforcing agent. I believe most people in that position would allow the emergency vehicles to do their jobs without citing them for violating the rule.

But they’re still violating it.

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

#758

Post by apricot » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

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

There is no sign. Nowhere in the question does it mention a sign.

What the question does say, however, is this: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

Which is pretty much the opposite of what you conclude.

Interesting.

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

#759

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:21 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #753

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…

There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. There was no mention of a medical emergency, just an EMT driving an ambulance. Police officers may or may not have jurisdiction in the area and there was no evidence the emergency was even a police matter. The EMT driving through the gate to watch the music festival, and the police officer driving through the park during mid-202…

Yes indeed. “In a justifiable emergency, X breaks the rules — does this break the rules?” Is a very clear “yes”. It doesn’t ask whether X should be punished for breaking them.

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

#760

Post by nathan_compton » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 12:25 PM UTC

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…

It might be a problem, but it is also an inescapable part of the human condition because, at the end of the day, rules are imaginary and all that really exist are human actions. It is pretty hopeless to complain about rules from this point of view.

Assumption of intent is critical to pretty much all social functioning. In this particular case, I think its outrageously reasonable to assume that if some unusual circumstance were to prevail in the park relevant to the definition of vehicle, the sign would explicitly indicate it. And that, without further clarification, the obvious answer is the one intended.