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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by hsjqllzlfkf »

kazinator wrote: post #162

If the park is in my neck of the woods, I can just use this definition: "vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include a device designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, mobile equipment, a motor assisted cycle or a regulated motorized personal mobility device [BC Motor Vehicle Act,…

That definition looks like it only applies to highways, whereas this exercise is much broader.

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

#223

Post by quickthrower2 »

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 everyone the answers are crystal clear. That doesn’t mean there isn’t disagreement across a population.

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

#224

Post by ComputerGuru »

code_duck wrote: post #173
paxys wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand the point of the exercise is to shed light on the vagaries of internet moderation. It’s not a very precise analogy. HN is essentially private property, and nobody needs to wonder things like “is flying a satellite over HN the same as posting on HN?” or “what is a a comment?”

No one said the park wasn’t private property either, conditionally open to the public just like HN ;)

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

#225

Post by ComputerGuru »

wzdd wrote: post #115
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

My reasoning was that in emergencies, typically, certain rules don't apply to certain groups of people if their actions are related to the emergency. Therefore, a police officer driving a police car into the park (assuming they're doing it because of the emergency) is not a violation of "no vehicles in the park" because for that officer, in that situation, there effectively is no such rule. In the real world, we migh…

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

I don’t think there’s ever effectively “no such rule” but only “(expected) immunity from consequences of said rule” which is subtly different.

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

#226

Post by anikom15 »

code_duck wrote: post #164
ComputerGuru wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually disagree. I assume every law is subject to "at the discretion of the DA/judge" (or whoever is in charge). Do you think everyone needs to account for every emergency circumstance possible in every law? In real life, there's the law and then there are mitigating circumstances. (A few years ago I could have said "we don't get ticketed by an AI that only follows the rules it was given." Well, we do now in many…

Legal decisions are made based on historical interpretation, assumed intent of lawmakers and legal precedent. If needed legal interpretation can go back the English Common Law or the Magna Carta. A law or rule like this could be challenged in court as so vague as to be meaningless, and unenforceable.

Only in Common Law countries is this true. In Civil Law countries, you actually do need to account for all exceptions.

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

#227

Post by tracerbulletx »

bhaney wrote: post #20

Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…

Yeah it raises potential ontological issues about the words "vehicles", "in", "rule" and probably others.

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

#228

Post by quickthrower2 »

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…

You are mimicking local jurisdiction rules. You don’t even know why they disallow vehicles. Let’s say because of subsidence or weight load. Then even emergency services should not go in as it would give more risk to them. Instead they need to walk in or use a helicopter suspended in mid air.

More surreal maybe it is above that cave in Lost and even an ISS or plane should not go over that location.

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

#229

Post by zajio1am »

juujian wrote: post #18
iherbig wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you do, honestly. The point of the exercise is exactly the ambiguity that stood out to you. Also, the question was very explicitly not asking if an ambulance in the park is "okay." The question is asking is it a rule violation. It's an excellent analogy, in my opinion, because what it's trying to be analogous to is the general ambiguity of language that makes content moderation difficult. It's hardly…

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

> Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone.

Note that taking it literally even calling for imprisonment is advocating for violence (unless convict accepts imprisonment voluntarily and not under threat of legal violence by law enforcement).

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

#230

Post by dmattia »

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 think the author should have made the statement "A sandwich is an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them".

And then asked questions like:

- Is a grilled cheese a sandwich?

- Is two pieces of bread with a third piece of bread in the middle a sandwich?

- Is a hotdog a sandwich?

- Is a taco a sandwich?

- Is a breadbowl a sandwich?

- Is a poptart a sandwich?

- Is a calzone a sandwich?

- Is a burrito a sandwich?

- Is a pizza folded in half a sandwich?

Having asked these questions to many folks over the years, I promise the answers are much more split.

Post reply on HN