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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by rdlw »

jaza wrote: post #452
Qwertious wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 in the same way. I chose to interpret the rule as "no functioning registered terrestrial road vehicles", in which case emergency vehicles are violating the rule.

"Honest, officer, it's unregistered!"

(driving a tank through the park)

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

#812

Post by NikkiA »

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…

If emergency vehicles were exempt, the sign would say so, it does not.

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

#813

Post by elif »

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…

Your attempt at making it black and white fails. When you say "obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign."

Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3?

Part of doing the job of firefighter includes conducting drills. Can they choose the park as their drill environment?

Further, even if they are responding to a crime in the park, are police allowed to drive on the sidewalk because someone has broken the littering ordinance?

Even ignoring these grey areas and focusing on your own statement, there is a philosophical dilemma. Are the first responders who "don't have to follow" an inherent part of the rule, or is the rule absolute and they are merely permitted to break it? in either case, by legal or by social convention?

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

#814

Post by hamburglar »

jaza wrote: post #452
Qwertious wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 in the same way. I chose to interpret the rule as "no functioning registered terrestrial road vehicles", in which case emergency vehicles are violating the rule.

My approach was that the tank and the emergency vehicles were all strictly violating the rule, and that in a reasonable world they would all have some external dispensation for being allowed to violate the rule.

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

#815

Post by Dylan16807 »

laurentlb wrote: post #713
Dylan16807 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers? Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed". You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this…

> if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay The quizz would have asked questions about the new edge-cases (created by the additional examples).

And those new edge cases would be much less important and more obscure.

The people just trying to follow the law would have a much easier time.

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

#816

Post by bosie »

elif wrote: post #813
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…

Your attempt at making it black and white fails. When you say "obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign." Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3? Part of doing the job of firefighter includes conducting drills. Can they choose the park as their drill environment? Furt…

just an FYI (going out on a limb) but nobody knows what this even means "Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3?"

if you could either explain the lingo or dial it down, that would be great for the rest of us to understand your argument

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

#817

Post by alickz »

barrkel wrote: post #495
jstanley wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, small children annoy people with bikes, because some people try to take small children where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.

Parks should not be inappropriate places for children.

nor bikes

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

#818

Post by scaramanga »

benj111 wrote: post #521
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. It's still breaking the rule though. Legally I suspect it varies between jurisdictions whether the sign doesn't apply to them, it does apply but conflicts with another rule, or whether it's argued as an extenuating circumstance. Then there's the edge cases like bikes and horses. Are they vehicles? It's completely reason…

There is being rational, using principles to interpret a statement.

And then there is being rational to the extent that you are in complete denial about that the fact that your rational faculty is located within a spongy organ in the cranial cavity of an ambulatory meat bag.

There doesn't need to be an objective measure for you to take a position on the intent and meaning of a linguistic construct such as a rule. It is just a thing that bipedal meatbags do.

If one meatbag has a different view than another meatbag then they are in a political conflict. There are ways of resolving the conflict which range from friendly chat, through formal debate, right the way to genocide. Generally speaking, well adjusted members of civilised society can resolve things through the former. Sometimes we go fucking bananas and end up at the latter.

Not sure why so many find it so difficult to grasp, or feel the need to apologize that they are mortal, they can't derive the answer from a set of universally agreed-upon axioms and carve it in to a stone tablet like some old-testament god ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#819

Post by hgsgm »

taeric wrote: post #804
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…

You pretty much have to assume intent, though? To mind, language doesn't exist without intent. You are correct that you may be wrong on the underlying message that is being communicated, but that is basically boiling communication back to the measuring problem. You measure what is easy to measure, you say what is easy to say. (As a fun counter to your example, so it would be ok if I bring a jack hammer and start poun…

> Regular expressions can describe context free shapes of symbols.

What is "shapes of symbols"? Do you mean "characters"? If you are trying to say that "regular languages" are a proper subset of (less expressive than) "context-free grammar" languages , probably best to leave it at that, and let people look up those well-documented terms if they want to learn more. Making up a new term distracts people who know the normal terms, and is just as confusing for people who don't.

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

#820

Post by elif »

bosie wrote: post #816
elif wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your attempt at making it black and white fails. When you say "obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign." Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3? Part of doing the job of firefighter includes conducting drills. Can they choose the park as their drill environment? Furt…

just an FYI (going out on a limb) but nobody knows what this even means "Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3?" if you could either explain the lingo or dial it down, that would be great for the rest of us to understand your argument

Code 2 means emergency vehicles are responding to an emergency, have their lights and sirens on, and are thus permitted to violate traffic rules.

Code 3 means that emergency vehicles are responding to a non-emergency, backup for a scene which is mostly under control, etc. But it is not urgent enough to warrant lights or sirens.

Post reply on HN