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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by Spivak »

loeg wrote: post #29
hahajk wrote: post #23

What this highlights is that online we have lost - or at least eroded - social norms. If I see a sign that says "no vehicles allowed", it's obvious they don't mean wagons and strollers. In almost all cases the police and the public are 99% in sync. Online, though, the moderators are forced to do a careful study of every action and become asinine literalists lest a horde of boundary-pushers ruin it for everyone.

I think what it highlights is that the meaning of words depends on context and stripping all context from a rule and situation makes that ambiguous. Reading more into it than that seems silly.

Thank you! Language, specifically legalese, tries to make precise something that can't ever be. It's why "language prescriptivists" annoy me because it's not even a preference difference it's simply impossible, you can't define any word completely. Worse even if you could your definition is only good for a point in time.

Even simple things like chairs, you can't write down a definition that includes everything that humans consider chairs and excludes everything humans don't consider chairs.

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

#842

Post by Spooky23 »

wuiheerfoj wrote: post #585
dudeinjapan wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a vehicle entering the park would directly endanger lives--rather than just being a nuisance--the sign would (should) give the extra context to make a stronger discouragement. Otherwise, it is fair game to assume the "intent" of any such sign is to make guidelines to enhance the public's mutual enjoyment/safety at the park, and that such guidelines may be discarded when lives are endangered (police/ambulance). As…

I voted that a police car/ambulance driving into the park _was_ breaking the rules, though breaking the rules may be justifiable in some circumstances. The smoke signal example you gave is similar - if I’m lost, I care more about being found than the punishment for starting a fire. If the ‘no campfires’ rule was punishable by death (and enforced), perhaps I wouldn’t risk a smoke signal

In the US, usually the law is structured in such a way that the powers of the police are at the state level. A city or park authority isn’t empowered to restrict their actions in pursuit of her duty.

At the end of the day, as a person living their life, it really isn’t your business to know whether an airplane is intruding on park airspace. You should not drive in the park as a private citizen. If you’re a ambulance driver on official business, you should know what applies to you.

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

#843

Post by newaccount74 »

chairhairair wrote: post #799
newaccount74 wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It poses a deliberately vague question to provoke controversy where none exists.

Everyone agrees that the car is forbidden, the police and ambulance are technically forbidden but should be allowed, and all other cases are things that the sign obviously doesn't forbid.

If you argue otherwise you are just trying to come up with arguments for the sake of arguing.

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

#844

Post by mr_mitm »

fefe23 wrote: post #840

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. I…

My reasoning was: Yes, an EMT violates the rule, but in an emergency rules don't necessarily apply anymore.

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

#845

Post by evandale »

bscphil wrote: post #403
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.

> 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…

I was similar, a bicycle is a vehicle and I even called the toycar a vehicle because I think they were talking about those cars kids build and race down hills. I was considering more about "how is this typically powered?" and "what is the F=ma if it hit someone?"

If it's typically not human powered, a human typically rides it, it's typically heavy, and typically accelerates enough to seriously injure another person with minimal damage to yourself it's a vehicle. That's why skateboards and horses aren't vehicles but the bike and toy car was. Even the bike is dicey but it's fairly unanimous throughout the world that a bike is a vehicle.

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

#846

Post by Levitz »

meghan_rain wrote: post #366
kccqzy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social norms are quite culture-specific. Online people from all countries and cultures interact, and that's where some misunderstandings come from. It's not a big problem if everyone is civil and existing moderation mechanisms aren't overwhelmed; people quickly learn from online faux pas and the online social norm is restored.

> Social norms are quite culture-specific. This is an argument against migration then.

Not really a surprise to anyone, I hope? Integration is always the second step in any serious immigration policy.

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

#847

Post by antognini »

fefe23 wrote: post #840

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. I…

The legal definition of a vehicle can become relevant in some surprising ways under drunk driving laws. Most people assume that drunk driving laws are limited to driving an automobile, but in most states it simply refers to vehicles. Consequently, every now and again you get a story of someone being convicted of drunk driving when they have been bicycling while drunk. You can also be convicted of drunk driving for riding a horse while drunk (and people have been).

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

#848

Post by dahart »

pix128 wrote: post #321
l0b0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.

The question intentionally left out the altitude of the vehicle in order to trick us into thinking it’s a harder question to answer than it really is. I agree that ‘over’ tends to somewhat imply out, and ‘through’ tends to imply in, and would indeed change the distribution of answers.

In at least some countries (such as the U.S., and I would speculate practically all countries in the age of commercial flight and private drones, but I don’t know that for a fact) there are laws that define whether flying “over” a public park means in our out, and the park’s bounding volume is defined with a specific altitude ceiling. (It may be different depending on the type of aircraft, e.g., civilian drone vs emergency helicopter vs commercial airliner, etc.)

The author’s trick worked. People are arguing over whether a hypothetical airplane is in the hypothetical park without knowing the altitude or location, rather than pointing at the fact that he question is intentionally under-specified and the right answer depends on important details that were left out.

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

#849

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tomp wrote: post #714
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced . Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.

It’s 100% ridiculous. The virus doesn’t care when the gathering is happening. So why would you forbid live music, or gatherings, but only after midnight?!

That's why it's a ridiculous rule. It's arbitrary and subject to selective enforcement.

But as a guideline you could say if it's after midnight it's probably a party. And if it's not you let people use their judgment, because guidelines are suggestions enforced via social pressure, not via official penalties.

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

#850

Post by dahart »

patmcc wrote: post #357
pix128 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.

What if I fly a helicopter 10 feet off the ground, in the area of the park. Is that 'over' or 'through'?

In the U.S., by FAA law, flying a helicopter 10 feet off the ground in a public park is both over the ground and through (or “in”) the park. There’s no either-or.
Post reply on HN