171–180 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question
Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)
I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…
The whole exercise is easier once you realize the park is a nudist colony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing that makes this exercise fairly useless is that any real world law or rule would have exemptions for such circumstances, and a definition of “in the park” and what a vehicle is… not just one sentence with no clarification. Beyond that, also a history of previous legal interpretation to which one could refer.
This exercise is not about a court of law but any random online forum, for example the kind we are on right now. If you look up the HN participation guidelines you will find they are exactly as vague as the rule in the exercise and open to endless interpretation.
The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…
The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…
Like, missing the point with a planet's berth. Might go a ways in explaining the "mods are entitled jerks" attitude that keeps popping up around discussions of reddit, ignoring that they're the only reason reddit exists in a semi-usable state, ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These are questions worth asking and answers worth hearing, but the problem with the question here is that the rule "no vehicles in the park" already comes with a lot of baggage. For example, it's obvious that the rule is meant to prevent driving engine-propulsion vehicles through a park (a rule that we've seen many times in our own parks), so naturally police cars and ambulances will (or should) be exempt, especia…
> Even the most obvious-seeming judgments are, in fact, not obvious. I kind of disagree with this. The question leaves the definition of "vehicle," "in," and "park" purposefully ambiguous, so everyone kind of tries to fit the most "common sense" solution. In fact, I'd contend that the rule "life of a person outweighs park rule" is not even remotely controversial (apart from some maybe unreasonably staunch environment…
And even if you do agree on the spirit of the rules, they're still up for interpretation! Like, maybe everyone agrees that human life outweighs park rules, but disagrees on whether making rule exceptions for cops helps or hinders that directive.
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.
Are you sure? Legal systems have been arguing about the semantics of "obvious" rules for thousands of years.
This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising. If this included a definition of a vehicle, and asked if a vehicle was in the park, I'd expect consistent answers outside of the oddball aircraft and space station questions. I'd note my local park has such a rule, and the sign has pictures of what are and are not allowed, including a picture of a drone.
Here's a common example from real life: "No pornography". Even SCOTUS famously couldn't define obscenity ("I know it when I see it")