The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by ssnistfajen » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:02 AM UTC

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…

It's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each individual applies differently towards their decision making. This is exactly why content moderation has trouble to stay consistent and rarely pleases everyone, because so many nuances from non-intersecting aspects of logic/context/culture/opinions are forced to consolidate into a binary choice (violation vs. non-violation).

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

#282

Post by smcin » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:03 AM UTC

planckscnst wrote: post #158

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…

The "pulled a wagon" one is another aspect. Is the answerer assuming a vehicle pulled the wagon? I immediately wondered if the wagon was pulled by hand or animal or a vehicle.

If I bring a box of chocolate cars into the park and eat them, that's a violation too, right?

(If Schrodinger brings a backpack into the park but doesn't know what's in it, is that a violation? Did you pack your own luggage today, sir/maam?)

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

#283

Post by daveoc64 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:04 AM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #124

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.

>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.

What happens if the sign in your park was made in 1995, when drones, electric scooters, and electric bikes didn't exist or were not commonly used?

It's not possible to list every possible vehicle in existence, and to keep such a list updated. There are all sorts of weird things like electric unicycles, that most people haven't come across.

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

#284

Post by emmelaich » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:04 AM UTC

Macha wrote: post #16

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,…

Hey me too. Another 11 here.

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

#285

Post by AbraKdabra » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:05 AM UTC

I was waiting for something more "insightful", it sets the expectations too high and then instead I got hit by the content moderation crap stick, a vehicle is a vehicle and if an ambulance is driven into the park is violating the rule, wether you like it or not, the rule doesn't define morality. What a waste of time.

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

#286

Post by mmazzanti » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:06 AM UTC

dmattia wrote: post #230

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…

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_sandwich

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

#287

Post by nocoiner » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:07 AM UTC

I really thought the seemingly blatant stereotypical names were going to be a factor in the assessment.

Though I guess now that I think about it, I don’t know that I could point to a name that I think would be non-stereotypical in the 21st century. Maybe the names of the average upper middle class elementary school class - a lot of those seem to me to be pretty minimally correlated with ethnicity these days.

In a heavily white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant America of the not too distant past, there were clearly “default” names and “other” names, and I do think that’s less and less the case. Or at the very least, it’s no longer acceptable to think about the “default” names as being normal and every other type of name as signifying something outside the mainstream of society.

Still, there’s some deeply weird socioeconomic stuff that goes on with naming kids. There have got to be some good studies about those trends.

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

#288

Post by smcin » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:07 AM UTC

The author's site also links to their other games (https://games.novalis.org/),

and Semantle (https://semantle.com/), a semantic-similarity-based Wordle type guessing game (using word2vec similarity), is quite neat.

Was popular in 2022: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=semantle

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

#289

Post by kazinator » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:08 AM UTC

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #221

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.

Did you look up the definition of "highway", or are you substituting your own? It's in there.

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

#290

Post by ssnistfajen » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 3:09 AM UTC

Macha wrote: post #16

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,…

I also got 11% and think that number may be a result of some kind of flawed calculation. The final chart distribution of each "vehicle" paints a much clearer picture.