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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by 1970-01-01 »

This is fun! I propose a few more scenarios:

     A hot dog cart serves food in the park.

     A 1997 pickup truck is rusting away on the bottom of the park's lake.

     An elevator moves equipment up and down floors within the park's maintenance building.

     Deep under the park's lake, a nuclear submarine hides from satellites.

     An ice cream truck sits just on the border between the park entrance and a private road to a residence.

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

#822

Post by hgsgm »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #589
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. It's assuming the intent without sufficient context to know what it actually is. Because very little context was provided. And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important . > Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. We don't even know if there was a sign. None of that was specified.

> And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important. You're assuming that.

No, they were interpreting based on prior experience in communication.

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

#823

Post by woooooo »

elif wrote: post #820
bosie wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In practice, of course, cops will flick their lights on when they want to run a red light instead of waiting.

So of course they drive through the park whenever they want.

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

#825

Post by morning-coffee »

Macha wrote: post #34
bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

I got 12%, and after also not knowing what it means, and seeing no units whatsoever on the y-axis of the chart, have to leave feeling the author completely and utterly missed their opportunity to convince me of whatever argument they were making. You lose me completely at inability to convey meaningful data from the experiment.

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

#826

Post by hgsgm »

goodrubyist wrote: post #796
rossdavidh wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interpretat…

The justification for textualism is that it's better to be wrong in a precise way, than to try to be right in a fuzzy way. But both models are wrong. Bit rot is real and applies to laws. It's not possible to keep laws up to date with what they would be if lawmakers had infinite resources to dedicate to lawmaking and maintenance, even ignoring the huge issue of democratic consensus and parliamentary procedure issues.

(All models are wrong! Some useful!)

The law is a tool which imperfectly models the goals of the lawmakers.

For lawyers judges, the beauty of law is that the law has plenty of room to support contradictory interpretations.

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

#827

Post by phkahler »

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…

>> 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? Really? Not only do I find it non-obvious, the rules of the game specifically say to ignore outside context which would IMO include ignoring municipal laws or rules that might say emergency vehicles can go anywhere they are needed. That is huge part of the issue they are pointing out - an ambulance violates the rule, but context makes it OK.

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

#828

Post by jejeyyy77 »

phkahler wrote: post #827
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…

>> 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? Really? Not only do I find it non-obvious, the rules of the game specifically say to ignore outside context which would IMO include ignoring municipal laws or rules that might say emergency vehicles can go anywhere they are needed. That is huge part of the issue t…

lol, do you honestly in good faith actually believe the intention of that sign has anything to do with prohibiting vehicles in emergency situations?

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

#829

Post by taeric »

hgsgm wrote: post #819
taeric wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

Ha! "shapes" was a typo there for me. I meant collections or strings. Was trying not to bias it too far to where I was going.

But, yes. There is some ambiguity there. That is still perfectly consistent with my point. To think that you can separate use of language from the intent of the use is a fool's errand. One that we often partake in.

Consider for even more fun, many laws are enforced such that the intent of the law is not the only intent consulted, but the intent of the person that broke it. I don't know why humanity is full of so many smart people that all think they can make intent not necessary. When most places context is removed, the results are often catastrophic.

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

#830

Post by throw240623 »

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…

I'm Argentinian. I love breaking the rules and I love living in a place where rules are rarely enforced. It's almost a sport for me. "Why? Why should go along with this? Fuck that"
Post reply on HN