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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by mrtksn »

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?!

It was clearly targeting the secular folks and the musicians, which are predominantly secular and from the opposition.

Ban on gatherings were introduced for short periods at the hight of the pandemic, the music ban was a separate one which lasted up until days ago.

All other kind of gatherings were allowed. They even held a large religious gathering , bringing people from all around the to the conversion of the Hagia Sophia museum into a mosque since it was also a political event(They were promising to turn it into a mosque since years, apparently an important thing for the devout muslims). This was between the first wave which claimed the lives of 50K and the 3rd wave which killed that many more.

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

#982

Post by Dah00n »

chrismorgan wrote: post #797
Dah00n wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Common sense says I should ignore such signs and assess each situation individually. Does it? How is it different from Car A driving the speed limit and Car B driving 20 over because "I have a big SUV/racecar/motorcycle"? Laws are normally made knowing there are situations where it will not always seem common sense, but if we follow your logic we would have hundred of thousands of rules, like a complete set for each…

Cycles that are not upright bicycles (e.g. recumbent bicycles, upright tricycles, recumbent tricycles, quadricycles) are (completely naturally and understandably) discriminated against in legislation because they’re not so common. Although the law classifies them as bicycles, many laws and rules that affect them are made clearly not considering their different characteristics—their size, their stability, their handli…

I agree that a form of category might be a good idea, but I disagree that the example is a different thing.

Another example could be banning loud or polluting vehicles in the city centre, as is happening in many cities. They use the same sweeping rules as in "No bicycles" and allow EVs "because they are silent and green as we all know" while in reality EVs are more noisy than a similar car at city speeds and up. Most people are not aware of this, but if you are, you could just as easily feel discriminated against in a small, new, diesel car. However, it would, in my opinion, be too difficult to have a society with the amount of rules needed to fix these kinds of cases.

(It is the low friction tires on EVs and the extra weight that cause the added noise. A stupid problem that could easily be fixed with normal tires on EVs.)

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

#984

Post by chipsa »

Tao3300 wrote: post #782
cgriswald wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use). However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one. I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I can't find any definition of tank that doesn't describe it as an armored fighting vehicle. If it's a tank, it's a vehicle. If it's not a vehicle, don't call it a tank. The scenario said tank. A tank is a vehicle. No vehicles in the park. Edit: I matched 11% as well!

A memorial tank is not a vehicle, it’s a metal sculpture. The intended use is no longer to move, but rather to sit there.

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

#985

Post by chipsa »

bscphil wrote: post #909
sethammons wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non functional tank. It is the same as a painting of a tank or a statue.

A broken car is still a car! If I pushed a broken down Honda Civic into the park with the gear shift set to neutral and left it there, surely that would break the rule?

Is a sculpture of a car a vehicle? The broken car is still a car because the intent of the thing is stop to be a car. A memorial tank is not intended to be a vehicle, but rather be a sculpture. A sculpture is usually not a vehicle, even if it may look like one.

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

#987

Post by revelio »

tptacek wrote: post #904
revelio wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fairly culturally specific interpretation of common sense. Where I live it would for sure also include e-bikes and scooters, quite possibly regular bikes too (this is assuming "park" here means something on the ground and not e.g. a roof park where there might be weight limits). The HN approach makes things simpler for moderators in much the same way that being a monarchy makes lawmaking simpler for the king…

On the contrary, "precise rules" make things harder for many people in the community, because the more precise you get, the more attention people pay to them, and the more work they put into getting as far with those precise rules as they can (after all, if the rules are precise, surely it's OK to come right up to their edge, like the railings at a scenic overlook). One weird subtext of this discussion is the idea th…

Getting moderated typically results in a post being made invisible to most site readers, which voids the effort put into writing it. Of course it imposes cost on the person being moderated, that's the purpose of moderation and bans in the first place.

Quite beyond the quiz instructions, the rest of the psychology on display in this thread is fascinating. Having clear rules makes things harder because other people will follow them. That sounds like the kind of outcome you fear only if you don't really want there to be rules, but only cultural homogeneity. Which is a stated anti-goal of the site.

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

#988

Post by tptacek »

revelio wrote: post #987
tptacek wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, "precise rules" make things harder for many people in the community, because the more precise you get, the more attention people pay to them, and the more work they put into getting as far with those precise rules as they can (after all, if the rules are precise, surely it's OK to come right up to their edge, like the railings at a scenic overlook). One weird subtext of this discussion is the idea th…

Getting moderated typically results in a post being made invisible to most site readers, which voids the effort put into writing it. Of course it imposes cost on the person being moderated, that's the purpose of moderation and bans in the first place. Quite beyond the quiz instructions, the rest of the psychology on display in this thread is fascinating. Having clear rules makes things harder because other people wil…

One person's "cultural homogeneity" is another's "shared community goal". There are, for example, people who share a goal of curious conversation, and others who advocacy goals, or other kinds of goals.

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

#989

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

sarchertech wrote: post #734
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You weren't being asked to enforce a rule, you were being asked to determine if a rule has been violated.

Whether a rule has been violated is a meaningless concept outside of the context of enforcement. Natural language itself must be interpreted within a context.

And yet, the courts and the police are separate entities.

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

#990

Post by goodrubyist »

hgsgm wrote: post #826
goodrubyist wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really look into how judges interpret laws (rules, basically). There are two schools I know of: purposivism and textualism (I agree with the latter and it doesn't take into account intentions. That's the basis of how the recent case Van Buren v US was decided, I would recommend reading it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf ). But in both, you have things like canons of interpretat…

The justification for textualism is that it's better to be wrong in a precise way, than to try to be right in a fuzzy way. But both models are wrong. Bit rot is real and applies to laws. It's not possible to keep laws up to date with what they would be if lawmakers had infinite resources to dedicate to lawmaking and maintenance, even ignoring the huge issue of democratic consensus and parliamentary procedure issues.…

That's not the argument for textualism. You can read law review articles and papers on SSRI to find more.
Post reply on HN