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

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

#791

Post by chrismorgan » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

Dah00n wrote: post #728

chrismorgan wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When visibly travelling at the same speed as pedestrians (… even when there are no pedestrians around!), and still insisting when you explain why dismounting is worse for everyone? No, it’s simply applying the rule because it’s a rule. The Protective Services Officers (cut-rate policemen) that are enforcing these sorts of rules are seldom interested in nuance. On another occasion I was fined by PSOs for walking along…

>No, it’s simply applying the rule because it’s a rule. Thought experiment: A: Put your head down on the pavement and close your eyes or B: let your toddler stand on the pavement. Who you'd rather have approaching you or the toddler at the same exact speed: Someone walking, someone on a tricycle, someone walking with a tricycle - all three with their nose in their phone or whatever people do when they are not 100% th…

Someone walking can plausibly be on a phone or similarly badly distracted. The tricyclist, whether walking or riding slowly around people, cannot. You or the toddler are far more likely to be trampled by a careless pedestrian than run over by a cyclist of any form (and even less by a recumbent tricyclist than an upright bicyclist) in a shared space.

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

#792

Post by kybernetikos » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:32 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.

The test explicitly asked for answers as to whether the rule is followed, not whether its ok to ignore the rule in a given situation. Very obviously a police car or an ambulance is a vehicle in the park.

> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

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

#793

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

hcks wrote: post #676

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…

Fascinating that the first comment entirely disregard the very simple game rules (“it’s not about your jurisdiction“ and “it’s not about wether the rule should be disregarded in that case“). 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…

[deleted]

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

#794

Post by rossdavidh » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:36 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…

Well, every rule and law in existence, that I can think of, has an assumed intent. That's probably a necessary condition for rules, whether it's a sign in the park or a government regulation or anything else.

If people do not have, to some degree at least, a shared intent (e.g. let's have a conversation here about topic X, let's have a park to have fun or relax in, etc.) there is probably no set of rules that can specify sufficiently what can and must not be done. If you did manage to craft such a sufficiently detailed set of rules, it would be too large for people to read and understand.

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

#795

Post by yellow_postit » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:40 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #794

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…

Well, every rule and law in existence, that I can think of, has an assumed intent. That's probably a necessary condition for rules, whether it's a sign in the park or a government regulation or anything else. If people do not have, to some degree at least, a shared intent (e.g. let's have a conversation here about topic X, let's have a park to have fun or relax in, etc.) there is probably no set of rules that can spe…

And now I’d say you’ve rediscovered part of the authors intent.

Shared intent, across cross border platforms, is awfully hard if not impossible to achieve with anything approaching consistency.

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

#796

Post by goodrubyist » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #794

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…

Well, every rule and law in existence, that I can think of, has an assumed intent. That's probably a necessary condition for rules, whether it's a sign in the park or a government regulation or anything else. If people do not have, to some degree at least, a shared intent (e.g. let's have a conversation here about topic X, let's have a park to have fun or relax in, etc.) there is probably no set of rules that can spe…

You should really look into how judges interpret laws (rules, basically). There are two schools I know of: purposivism and textualism (I agree with the latter and it doesn't take into account intentions. That's the basis of how the recent case Van Buren v US was decided, I would recommend reading it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf). But in both, you have things like canons of interpretation and background principles and so on. It's always awesome to see how people who have to deal with the problem have thought about it, because they have usually invested a lot of time into it and come up with insights. See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

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

#797

Post by chrismorgan » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:44 PM UTC

Dah00n wrote: post #725

chrismorgan wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way. For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle…

>Common sense says I should ignore such signs and assess each situation individually. Does it? How is it different from Car A driving the speed limit and Car B driving 20 over because "I have a big SUV/racecar/motorcycle"? Laws are normally made knowing there are situations where it will not always seem common sense, but if we follow your logic we would have hundred of thousands of rules, like a complete set for each…

Cycles that are not upright bicycles (e.g. recumbent bicycles, upright tricycles, recumbent tricycles, quadricycles) are (completely naturally and understandably) discriminated against in legislation because they’re not so common. Although the law classifies them as bicycles, many laws and rules that affect them are made clearly not considering their different characteristics—their size, their stability, their handling, things like that—and end up mandating things that make sense for upright bicycles but are for these other cycles counterproductive to the clear or likely (depending on the case) intent of the law.

Your example is patently unreasonable and a completely different thing.

Legislation defines various classes of vehicle, and changes the definitions and categories over time to match need. But it’s not good for the legislation to explicitly say “Category A encompasses Items B and C” and then to write a law for Item B but apply it instead to Category A. In this specific case, it’s probably mostly happened by sheer accident because they named Category A “Item B”, and so you can never tell whether the intention was to cover Item B or Category A.

This is why I like what New Zealand has done: by giving the category the name cycles and not bicycles, they’ve kept the opportunity to apply laws to bicycles specifically and not other forms of cycles, in cases where that makes sense.

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

#798

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

aranelsurion wrote: post #766

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 would definitely take the Turkish way of shrugging off rules Having lived most of my life in Turkey, it gets old really fast. For one thing, there's a certain culture that is a mixture of extreme fatalism, not giving a shit about anything that doesn't immediately benefit you, low respect to other people, and the worst part of it, seeing other people who care as weak, unmanly and naive, that is so pervasive in Tur…

> the worst part of it, seeing other people who care as weak, unmanly and naive, that is so pervasive in Turkey

pervasice in Russia too. Most non-democratic societies are indivifualistic and highly cynical.

That's why I say American brain is' a prison - they think in 'Socialist countries everyone cares about each. other too much, and that why they are poor

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

#799

Post by chairhairair » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

newaccount74 wrote: post #688

codetrotter wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think the website is very disingenuous because it purposely asks the wrong question. The question is not "is the rule technically violated", the question is "should they be fined for violating the rule". If you asked the latter question, then 99% of people would agree on all questions.

Disingenuous?

The game is trying to demonstrate that content moderation, even using simple explicit rules, is hard and will lead to disagreements.

The game has absolutely nothing to do with whether vehicles should actually be allowed in the hypothetical park, let alone if there should be fines.

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

#800

Post by sundvor » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

hunter2_ wrote: post #448

sundvor wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah applying a very loose, or perhaps pedantic, definition of vehicle (it doesn't specify size, for example) combined with a reasonable understanding of "in" ie including air space in proportion to the size of a regular park led me to say most things were in violation of the rule. Those were the only relevant factors, all the other info was fluff. I considered ISS to be outside it, and that was pretty much it. My vi…

You draw the line between ISS and commercial airplane? That seems like an odd place for it. I would think the limit of "in" would be at the prevailing treeline or maybe requires ground contact (I haven't fully decided yet), and beyond that it's "above" rather then "in." The problem with treeline (or any similar threshold) is that even having that defined doesn't solve for the fact that we don't know the altitude of t…

Ah I forgot about commercial airline, that was another no for me.