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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by thisisthepoint »

jejeyyy77 wrote: post #828
phkahler wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

You're missing the point of the game.

It isn't simple.

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

#832

Post by zamfi »

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…

Minor point perhaps, but there's no question about whether the police are violating the rule when they drive their car into the park: they are.

The question is whether it was justifiable and that's not what the original game asks you to evaluate, but it is the much harder question because it is almost always subjective--as you point out. In justifiability you can start asking about intent, weigh the various costs of the action, etc.

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

#833

Post by noduerme »

throw240623 wrote: post #830
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'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"

Overall, this is why I love Argentina.

It's also why Argentina is a fucking mess, but I love it. When I'm there it feels like the people will never, ever be conquered.

This is true in a lot of countries that had a dictatorship.

Weirdly, it is not true for Chile, where everyone still acts like they're in a dictatorship.. also the US, which never had a dictatorship but created and supported dictatorships all over the world.

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

#834

Post by msm_ »

willsmith72 wrote: post #378
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

I can't fanthom how a "no vehicles" sign would NOT apply to bicycles. What else would you call a bicycle if not a vehicle? It would be clear to me that park is catering to pedestrians and not cyclists (or car drivers).

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

#835

Post by marler8997 »

Great game, cleverly demonstrates a fundamental problem with creating rules/laws. I've wondered if focusing on the goal/intent when creating rules would be more effective? For example, instead of just a rule that says "No vehicles in the park", you could say, the community wants the park: - to be safe - to be peaceful/relaxing - to accommodate physical activities/games

For these reasons, we don't allow vehicles that will unnecessarily compromise safety and/or make a lot of noise.

Of course the goal/intent I've written suffers from the same problem as the rules did, the definitions are ambiguous, but I think there's a distinction between capturing the spirit vs the letter of the law. It's a guide for why the rules exist and when they should or shouldn't be applied. It's not perfect, but, I think it's an improvement of just listing rules. If capturing/publishing the reasons for rules alongside the rules was normalized I wonder how different things could be?

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

#836

Post by throw383632 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #807
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…

Hong Kong has a million written rules with harsh penalties that are never policed. It was bizarre to me but spoke volumes about the local culture!

[flagged]

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

#838

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Context always matters. Most people aren’t programmers or engineers and don’t appreciate or benefit from the level of micro-scoping that you crave.

A great example of when this does happen that you can google is parking signs in NYC. There’s a bunch of very specific rules that accommodate dozens of scenarios. As an engineer, I’d be hard pressed to actually determine the legality of a parking scenario in a more complex scenario.

At the end of the day, “No vehicles in the park” is a pretty clear instruction. The idea that first responders would be an exception is both covered in superseding law and a core principle. Preservation of human life supersedes the health of the turf.

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

#839

Post by dahart »

monkeywork wrote: post #339
themaninthedark wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can fly a plane across the globe but the plane's flight path must be approved by each of the 15 countries before it is allowed in their airspace. The countries often ask for passenger lists and manifests before they allow your plane to do so and have, in the past forced planes to land to get to passengers or suspected passengers on the plane they have an interest in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grou…

countries yes - because countries have airspaces. Parks typically do not - anymore than people flying over my house are not tresspassing.

If you live in the U.S., people flying very low over your house probably are trespassing, you have air rights. (True in other countries too.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights Before commercial flight was common, air rights used to extend into space. Now they’re limited, but you have at least a few hundred feet.

Parks do have airspaces, obviously and literally, and more to the point, in the U.S. there’s existing legislation defining the altitudes that are considered “in” and out of the park.

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

#840

Post by fefe23 »

Fascinating exercise. During my first attempt I found that I had to look up the actual definition of vehicle.

I initially thought that a vehicle means someone is being transported by the vehicle, using an engine.

According to wikipedia vehicle also includes things being moved by muscle, and it is not limited to transporting persons, also wares.

I also changed my mind on whether a police or EMT falls under the rule. It obviously does. There has to be a second rule overriding this rule for those cases.

Also I changed my mind on the paraglider and the ISS. The ISS is a vehicle but it's over the park not in the park. The paraglider is a vehicle under my new understanding of the definition, and it does not matter whether the initial thrust came from when the paraglider was outside the park.

It also explains why the rules in the park near me prohibit _driving_ a bike in the park, not having one.

Post reply on HN