911–920 of 1001 posts
I found the term 'wagon' to be unclear. In the UK, this would be something akin to an articulated lorry, although I am familiar with the American term 'station wagon' so I took it to mean a type of motor car at the very least. Presumably that is not the case, having now seen the results. Is it a sort of unpowered trolley?
I found the term 'wagon' to be unclear. In the UK, this would be something akin to an articulated lorry, although I am familiar with the American term 'station wagon' so I took it to mean a type of motor car at the very least. Presumably that is not the case, having now seen the results. Is it a sort of unpowered trolley?
To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboar…
Everyone is trying to interpret one line of text. But that line ks just a stand in for a much longer text that should answer all of the questions.
E.g. for emergency vehicles, there is certainly a statute somewhere that grants them exemption, if that is appropriate. We don't need to torture ourself wondering.
The sibling who mentioned his recombinant bicycle not fitting the intent of the bylaws should petition the relevant authority to update the text to clarify this detail. But that doesn't mean they're going to change the signs or graphics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you look up the definition of "highway", or are you substituting your own? It's in there.
> highway "includes every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles" By definition, a park where vehicles are forbidden is not a highway. Please don't act smarter than you are.
Just because the definition of vehicles refers to highways doesn't mean the definition is not relevant in a situation in which there are no highways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once you stop using moderation to implicitly endorse speech you aren't as responsible for anything that is said. This is the entire point of section 230. Are you suggesting that section 230 is meant to discourage Internet intermediaries from moderation? The original intent of this law was to stop requiring intermediaries to choose between adopting a passive conduit role and having legal responsibility for content.…
If you take moderation far enough you become a publisher
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…
Nope, not for me :-) But funny part is that it's so obvious for me, I'm surprised anyone else thinks otherwise.
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…
Defining rules based on intent works when there’s less corruption. Otherwise the rule will be vague enough to extract a bribe or a blackmail by the enforcing authority. Once corruption is under control you can have things like prosecutorial discretion. On the other hand, having so many rules that no one can reasonably know, understand and follow will also lead to bribes and extortion by law enforcement if corruption…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Right but overly generic rules make that worse. And overly specific make a lot of work and allow stuff to still go thru cracks. It's hard problem to make following rules with intent but without rule-enforcers using it for their own whims > Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and…
That sounds fantastic actually fighting everyday bribery is such a nice feeling. I spent some time in a country with corrupt officers it was a real life drain for me, it was why I could not live abroad. The Wikipedia article is a little bit light on the bribery aspect, but there seems to have been considerable efforts made before 2012. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Poland
Communication and interpretation is hard. This is a blind spot for many techies, who think there are "right answers".