291–300 of 1001 posts
The HN guidelines come to mind here, they're a mix of more literal ("don't use uppercase for emphasis") and spirit/intent ("anything that good hackers would find interesting"). Seems to work here - but curious how many pedantic struggles dang & co. encounter.
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…
Nobody provided the definition of vehicle either. The summary references lawyers using a variation of this game, but most legalese I've seen as a layperson usually starts by defining terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is unclear given that you and I don't agree. The question wasnt "does the police have to follow the sign", you made that up.
The nuance on that one felt odd. I said that it did violate the rule (even the spirit of the rule, being a large motor vehicle), because it was a binary question. I also felt the rule violation was justified and that they shouldn’t be called out on it.
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 kinda answered in terms of "what interpretation of the sign gives parkgoers the best overall experience". Don't legal situations generally consider the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law? The HN guidelines come to mind here, they're a mix of more literal ("don't use uppercase for emphasis") and spirit/intent ("anything that good hackers would find interesting"). Seems to work here - but curious how m…
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…
Nobody provided the definition of vehicle either. The summary references lawyers using a variation of this game, but most legalese I've seen as a layperson usually starts by defining terms.
I eventually came up with a mental model that was something like “an artificially powered or mechanically advantaged means of conveyance or transport, especially one that creates negative externalities to other park goers inconsistent with typical use and enjoyment of public park space.” But that wasn’t absolute - the non-functional tank was, in my mind, quite obviously a vehicle, and so was prohibited. Someone at a higher pay grade is going to have to make an exception there. The skydiver - ehhh, it was a stretch to call him a vehicle, but by my heuristic he broke the sign’s rule.
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…
> often to be about being motorized or speed.
This more precise definition would include the toy car, quadcopter, ISS, and airplane, all of which fewer than 20% of respondents believe are vehicles.
> It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed.
It doesn't actually. It asks if a particular rule has been violated, not whether the violation is or should be acceptable (and it makes that distinction very explicitly even!).
The objections you have to the exercise don't actually seem that well founded, and the analogy appears even better due to the nature of your objections.
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…
Only the car is forbidden and everything else goes.
I kinda answered in terms of "what interpretation of the sign gives parkgoers the best overall experience". Don't legal situations generally consider the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law? The HN guidelines come to mind here, they're a mix of more literal ("don't use uppercase for emphasis") and spirit/intent ("anything that good hackers would find interesting"). Seems to work here - but curious how m…
That kind of proves the point. The starting paragraph asked you explicitly to ignore local laws or personal beliefs and take actions based on only the most literal definition of the rule, and yet almost half of people chose to ignore this and use their own rules. Like how they do for content moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kind of proves the point. The starting paragraph asked you explicitly to ignore local laws or personal beliefs and take actions based on only the most literal definition of the rule, and yet almost half of people chose to ignore this and use their own rules. Like how they do for content moderation.
Well in that case the whole ruse of the park is pointless, and the game should just be "click the words that are vehicles". And matchbox cars and space stations are included.