851–860 of 1001 posts
My guess is that they’re taking the percent of all people who answered at least seven questions, but I could be wrong, and the results are in any case very misleading.
At one of my jobs, a product manager came up with the idea of categorizing explicitly delineating everybody's selection criteria into a "normalized" form to allow for aggregating statistics.
I tried to point out up front what a fool's errand in this was. There is way too much ambiguity in the language.
I was overruled and the company then spent probably 7 to 15 million dollars chasing this ridiculous El Dorado dream. Eventually, after 3 years of wandering in the wilderness of normalized ontologies, they gave up and decided all NLP is bad.
This decision came out about 2 months before the release of chatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle Other definitions include an agent of transmission (e.g. for and infection) and a medium though which something is displayed (dance is the vehicle for my creativity). Would have been interesting to see the different definitions exploited vs more strained classification of shoes or skates or whatnot as vehicles.
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 two questions have to be considered, then: How would you phrase the question/game so that 100% of people all get the same answers as you? How would you expect others to phrase the question, so that you'd 100% agree with their answers?
Taking the ambulance example: it would indeed break a literal interpretation of "no vehicles in the park" and would also fall under the instruction "ignore your local laws". The issue, however, is that 99% of all parks in the world would allow ambulances, and those that don't would have a specific clarification as to why (archeological site, dangerous, etc). At that point, if it didn't allow ambulances then it would almost certainly not be a park either.
If I wanted to get agreement I would specifically write "forget what you know about the human experience and pretend you're a cold robot with no feelings and no idea about social contracts".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then i…
When you jump, do you leave the park? If you jump really high? Or are flung via trebuchet?
This is a bit of a straw man, because (1) a real sign would say something "no motorized vehicles allowed in park". (2) implied with the sign is the jurisdiction of whoever put it there - presumably the city goverment which doesn't control things in the airspace high over the ground, and which grants exemptions to emergency services.
What about powered electric wheelchairs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each individual applies differently towards their decision making. This is exactly why content moderation has trouble to stay consistent and rarely pleases everyone, because so many nuances from non-intersecting aspects of logic/context/culture/opinions are forced t…
No, you missed the point entirely. The question was whether the scenario is a violation but the answers were not labeled accordingly. For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault
Rules are pedantic by their nature, that's the whole point of interpreting them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this take. Most questions were very obvious when thought about from the angle of "what is the intent of the rule", which is likely to be "let people enjoy the park by not allowing large, noisy, smelly conveyances". Bikes, kites, monuments, Radio Flyers, etc. do not violate the intent. A tank is clearly a vehicle but doesn't violate the intent because it does not interfere with people enjoying the park. A…
Bikes do annoy people with small children because some people try to ride bikes fast where not appropriate, and this is dangerous when small children change direction unpredictably.
Bikes riding fast in parks and murdering children does not happen anywhere at any significant scale. It's a made up fear, just like the "stranger danger" of the past.
Anger at cyclists for driving fast and breaking laws is an emotional response to feeling jealous that bikes are zipping past them while they're sitting there waiting in traffic for 10 minutes at a red light.
How often do you see motorists get pissed off and honk at other motorists running a red or yellow on a left hand turn? They want people to break the law in that instance but will honk at cyclists for the most minor of transgressions. That's all they proof I need to conclude motorists don't give a shit about the law or safety (the classic I just want cyclists to follow the law because if they don't I can hurt them and I'll have to live with a guilty conscience! defense) and care more about reducing their travel times.
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…
In some countries they can ignore such signs only when under an emergency and rights have been given by a central or a local station. A police car can't just turn on flashy lights and drive into a park.
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…