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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by denysvitali »

mnw21cam wrote: post #658
denysvitali wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign" They basically said to ignore local jurisdiction laws. Depending on where the sign is placed, this might not be so obvious. If you take the sign rule to the letter, an ambulance is a vehicle and thus cannot enter the park as well. Police can enter the park, but without a vehicle.

I'll argue that the police can enter the park with their vehicles, but they'll be violating the rule when they do so. But if we're ignoring local rules and the only question is whether or not they would be violating the rules, then yes they would be, and whether they can anyway is out of scope.

Yes, exactly my interpretation - which makes this a rule violation. Whether this rule violation should be persecuted is a different matter though :)

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

#782

Post by Tao3300 »

cgriswald wrote: post #709
bscphil wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. This is exactly right, I think, and in fact those who are focusing on the "intent" of the rule or on whether a violation of the rule is justified seem to have missed the clear wording of the instructions: > Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed). So the only questions…

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use). However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one. I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I can't find any definition of tank that doesn't describe it as an armored fighting vehicle. If it's a tank, it's a vehicle. If it's not a vehicle, don't call it a tank.

The scenario said tank. A tank is a vehicle. No vehicles in the park.

Edit: I matched 11% as well!

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

#783

Post by [deleted] »

comboy wrote: post #778
cj wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I disagree due to the instructions on the page before starting the quiz: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)." The game is specifically asking us not to make a judgement call on whether a violation of the rule should be permitted. So, police are…

And police is like one super clear example of violation, everybody can agree car is a vehicle, and it's clearly written that you answer whether it's a violation not whether it should be, ignoring your local laws. And yet it is top comment, with many confirmations in the replies. I had to scroll really really long to find somebody quoting short instruction which the parent is ignoring. So long story short, amazing job…

[deleted]

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

#784

Post by HelloMcFly »

cgriswald wrote: post #709
bscphil wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. This is exactly right, I think, and in fact those who are focusing on the "intent" of the rule or on whether a violation of the rule is justified seem to have missed the clear wording of the instructions: > Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed). So the only questions…

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use). However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one. I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I applied the same mental model and also ended with 11%. It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).

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

#785

Post by kitd »

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…

> 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.

"Obvious" for you that is. I had a different interpretation of the obvious rule, so came up with a different set of answers.

QED, no?

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

#786

Post by HelloMcFly »

Tao3300 wrote: post #782
cgriswald wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use). However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one. I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I can't find any definition of tank that doesn't describe it as an armored fighting vehicle. If it's a tank, it's a vehicle. If it's not a vehicle, don't call it a tank. The scenario said tank. A tank is a vehicle. No vehicles in the park. Edit: I matched 11% as well!

Does the tank ever become not a vehicle? Rusted to the frame?

In my view no matter what the tank originally was, it ceases to be a vehicle when it can no longer act as a conveyance. A tank (and any vehicle) is not just a form, but a function. Is a car with no motor, no tires, no transmission a vehicle? I do not believe so, because it cannot and lacks the possibility of moving without a substantial transformation.

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

#787

Post by noduerme »

sokoloff wrote: post #776
noduerme wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. I also grew up there. I think there’s a low level compliance with what I’d call daily/minor rules. Cigarette butts tossed wherever you are when you finish one, speed limits are barely even advisory, jaywalking widely practiced, etc.

>> jaywalking widely practiced

Depends. In NYC, jaywalking is normal. In Santa Monica, you get a ticket. Speeding is mostly enforced everywhere.

What sets the US apart from countries like Argentina, in this department, is that the cops won't just ask you for a bribe when they stop you. You actually end up with a ticket and have to deal with it.

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

#788

Post by [deleted] »

rmorey wrote: post #212
Macha wrote: post #16

The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…

Did anyone not get 11?

[deleted]

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

#789

Post by HelloMcFly »

kristjansson wrote: post #496
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…

“No rhetorical vehicles in the park” is … quite the interpretation

It's honestly blowing my mind right now that anyone could interpret as a bike as anything but a vehicle. What else would it be? What is a railroad handcar? What is a paddleboat? What is a cycle saloon?

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

#790

Post by noduerme »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #707
noduerme wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. I don't understand this. I live near Munich, people cross against a red light all the time. Maybe you were doing it near children? That's a real social faux-pas, because they're not supposed to normalize jaywalking.

>> Maybe you were doing it near children?

YES that is precisely what happened. That's so funny you said this.

I was standing in heavy falling snow, at the corner of an empty boulevard, next to a woman with two little daughters and a young boy. I stood for a moment and then walked across and she started yelling at me. I suppose she was trying to teach her children to be patient and wait for the light to change. What went through my head at that moment was, I kid you not, "ah, that's how they learn to follow orders".

And this is entirely in sync with my original point above, but also personally, I loathe Munich. There's nothing like being told holocaust jokes when people don't know you're Jewish. I believe the people there would vote for Hitler in a heartbeat if he were alive and running for office.

Post reply on HN