The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#861

Post by konschubert » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

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…

Selective enforcement of rules transfers power from the legislative to the people in charge.

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

#862

Post by seeknotfind » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:55 PM UTC

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…

I interpreted the ambulance and police as breaking the rule, even though it wouldn't be persecuted. Of course the important thing isn't the rule, but people's reaction over time. A vehicle might cause unwanted noise or damage park grounds. Even without the rule, people might get upset if people use vehicles to degrade park quality. On the other end, if the park is many miles across and it has large paved trails, people might perceive the rule as unjust. So it's ultimately this negotiation and power between participants (including the park owners) that determines acceptability. An arbitrary rule which is easy to break but without real harm, in enforcing it, creates more harm than it prevents. So, I don't care about the rule but how it's enforced. Another concept useful to these situations is Taleb's intransigent minority: those who care will win over those who don't. With content moderation, we will always have a battle between those who perceive harm and those who don't. Problematic rules must be fought just as problematic content must be fought. A systems ability to adapt rules over time will ultimately determine its useful life. Change or be replaced.

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

#863

Post by dheera » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

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…

In a lot of countries intent is in fact everything. It's common for developed countries to be more governed by written law and have that interpreted as such in court, but in many developing countries it's all about what you are trying to do.

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

#864

Post by evandale » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

graftak wrote: post #667

denysvitali wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign" They basically said to ignore local jurisdiction laws. Depending on where the sign is placed, this might not be so obvious. If you take the sign rule to the letter, an ambulance is a vehicle and thus cannot enter the park as well. Police can enter the park, but without a vehicle.

In that scenario the duty to help citizens in need simply supersedes the rule that vehicles are not allowed in the park. So pedantically the EMT and police officer are breaking the rule, but breaking the rule of idly standing by in an emergency is worse. The reason to allow emergency vehicles to go through the park must then outweigh the benefit of the ‘no vehicles allowed rule’. Something trivial like a pedestrian i…

> The reason to allow emergency vehicles to go through the park must then outweigh the benefit of the ‘no vehicles allowed rule’.

Exactly, the Hippocratic oath supersedes the no vehicle rule.

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

#865

Post by mcherm » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

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…

> To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear.

That's not particularly surprising. But you may be asking the wrong question.

If you want to know whether the rules are clear then I think that the right question to ask is not "Are the answers crystal-clear to you?" but "Will different people produce the same answers?".

If we had a sharp drop in the graph at one point then it would suggest that most everyone has the same cutoff; instead we see a very smooth curve as if different people read this VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR rule and still didn't agree on when it applied.

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

#866

Post by hunter2_ » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

antognini wrote: post #847

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 r…

Does the legal definition include a sled going down a hill? If sleds, then skis aren't much of a stretch. And if skis, then shoes aren't much of a stretch.

When I was reading the dictionary definition, I got the sense that gravity isn't eligible as the motive force, and instead it would need to be someone exerting themselves (like pulling a wagon) or using stored energy (like an automobile). But sliding down a hill by gravity is indeed using stored energy, so I'd think that counts!

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

#867

Post by ozgune » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #489

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…

>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…

(I'm Turkish living in the US.)

I think that's part of it. Another part is Turkey's legal system is based on Swiss law. From ChatGPT:

The legal systems of the United States and Continental Europe differ in several ways. One major difference is that the US follows a common law system, which is based on the precedent set by previous court rulings, while Continental Europe follows a civil law system, which is based on a comprehensive legal code.

In other words, the US legal system is based on intent with laws providing guidance to courts to assess intent. In Turkey, the legal system writes everything down and courts assess if you followed the code.

I think even this conversation itself demonstrates how hard it's to moderate content in the internet. Maybe we need lawyers? :)

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

#868

Post by evandale » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #627

andrepd wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, let's have chatgpt-5 decide what I can or cannot write, what a capital idea.

I mean why not? Automoderator bots are already a thing on reddit and work reasonably well with just simple fuzzy string matching. If one can appeal to a human as a last resort when edge cases occur I don't really see a problem. If anything it'll have a few orders of magnitude less false positives.

> I mean why not

You can't possibly be serious or be in good faith.

Giving AI the blanket ability to censor with no human controls will destroy us faster than giving AI the blanket ability to launch nukes with no human controls.

That is, unless the AI has already decided it's going to launch the nukes to save the world the second we give it the authority and it plans to lie and say yes when we make it pretty please pinky promise to not launch the nukes with the goal of destroying humanity.

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

#869

Post by jwie » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

No to all questions since there’s probably a way in which doing any of those things still obeys the rule. The rule is about achieving the intent of the rule, not rote obedience.

The park might contain a parking lot, or an area where skateboarding is permitted, etc. Absent context, or a specific park, who could say if any of the things listed violate the rules.

As for what constitutes a vehicle, this is why you give examples.

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

#870

Post by baliex » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 4:14 PM UTC

jwie wrote: post #869

No to all questions since there’s probably a way in which doing any of those things still obeys the rule. The rule is about achieving the intent of the rule, not rote obedience. The park might contain a parking lot, or an area where skateboarding is permitted, etc. Absent context, or a specific park, who could say if any of the things listed violate the rules. As for what constitutes a vehicle, this is why you give e…

Did you actually try it?

It sounds like you did, because you’ve given a car and skateboard example, which do appear in the exercise.

But it sounds like you didn’t because you’ve given such an authoritative answer when the whole point of the exercise is that “it’s complicated”. There is no One True Answer, it’s open to interpretation, that’s the complexity it demonstrates.