921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. Well, no, people can just be wrong.
Wrong people can have quite a lot of influence in an internet forum, so that's a distinction without much difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.
It is funny that you say so because for me the primary axis was about whether the rule was violated or not. This is why some people (including myself) chose that an ambulance driven into a park wouldn't be a violation of the rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the purpose was to focus on the rule not on the intent of the rule.
Following rules without thinking of their intent is just malicious compliance.
If the rule or intent is ambiguous, problems may be considered inevitable.
In the above game, you really can't guess the intent. Of course this is partly, because it's an abstract example. But the intent can't really be "no cars or carsy things", because the real intent in "no cars in the park" would be perhaps a combination of no loud noises, no high speed, no heavy objects, no pollution etc.
I realize this may not be an agreeable point since I only got 11% in the game with the assumption that a vehicle is something used for transport (excluding wearables) and that the rules would be seen somewhere in or around the park (so not in the air).
All the discussions over interpretation are missing the point of the exercise, which is to show how hard it is to find agreement over something as emotionally neutral as "is the vehicle in the park". Communication and interpretation is hard. This is a blind spot for many techies, who think there are "right answers".
It has basically nothing to do with your interpretation, or how "good" you are at understanding the literal or intended meaning of the sign. The point is about how hard it is for all of us to agree on these matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…
You just made me look up the rules in germany. The wording is somewhat particular. "An emergency vehicle following a higher cause can invoke special rights ("Sonderrechte") indicated by blue flashing lights. These special rights authorize the driver of the vehicle to divert from the regular traffic laws as long as done safely." Interestingly, this is separate from the "Right of the way", which can be ordered on top u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take moderation far enough you become a publisher
That's not true. As far as the law is concerned, users/providers are shielded so long as they don't take part in authorship. You be as despotic or biased as you want, and you're still not considered the publisher of content provided by another user/provider.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...
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…
(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…
Please do not use a hallucinating LLM as a source for any substantive issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, even there for me it's rather a "firefighters/police have an exemption to the rules". For you it's "firefighters/police are breaking the rule but it's fine".
Here where I live, the latter is actually precisely how the traffic law enforcement works: emergency services get tickets in the post for traffic violations same as everyone else, and it is up to the officials to check their logs and respond with "the vehicle was responding to an incident", which is a valid defence and gets the violation dismissed; or not, as the case may be, if it turns out the crew ran a red light…
I assume you are referring to traffic laws that are enforced by cameras. Is that correct?
Where do you live?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
just an FYI (going out on a limb) but nobody knows what this even means "Does this mean that if police are code 2 en route to a crime 10 miles away they can use the park to save time? What if they are code 3?" if you could either explain the lingo or dial it down, that would be great for the rest of us to understand your argument
Code 2 means emergency vehicles are responding to an emergency, have their lights and sirens on, and are thus permitted to violate traffic rules. Code 3 means that emergency vehicles are responding to a non-emergency, backup for a scene which is mostly under control, etc. But it is not urgent enough to warrant lights or sirens.
Best to avoid jargon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me you've never done (or thought about) content moderation without telling me you've never done or thought about content moderation. Rules are pedantic by their nature, that's the whole point of interpreting them.
You've missed the point of my comment too. We all agree that the exercise is pedantic by design, and that the goal of the exercise is to show how much variance there is in interpreting them. The point, that you've missed twice now, is that the results are presented using incorrect language.