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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by pix128 »

l0b0 wrote: post #47
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…

Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.

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

#322

Post by nitwit005 »

daveoc64 wrote: post #283
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 elec…

What happens is they have to update a sign every couple of decades.

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

#323

Post by torton »

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 agree with this take. Most questions were very obvious when thought about from the angle of "what is the intent of the rule", which is likely to be "let people enjoy the park by not allowing large, noisy, smelly conveyances".

Bikes, kites, monuments, Radio Flyers, etc. do not violate the intent. A tank is clearly a vehicle but doesn't violate the intent because it does not interfere with people enjoying the park. And rules do not apply to on-duty emergency vehicles.

Clearly not everybody thinks about the intent, and many people focus on discussing the nitpicking corner cases of the rules, or thinking about the definition of a vehicle or "being in the park" (see also "what is a sandwich"). That's okay, and that proves the author's point that moderation is not a mathematical problem with a single formally provable solution.

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

#324

Post by mint2 »

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,…

Same, the only three I marked as violating the rule were the car, the police and the ambulance. And it told me I agreed with 11% but showed a bar chart showing that basically everyone agreed with me. It was confusing.

Also breaking a rule is fine for an emergency vehicle.

I also took away the opposite of what the author tried to convey.

But I also got a bad impression of their argumentative integrity because they tried to use a strawman to illustrate their point - only it backfired anyway.

An ill defined rule that lacks examples and definition is not a good way to prove people interpret a good faith attempt at rules differently.

And the longer explanation at the end simply dismisses the notion of giving any examples or even trying to give a clear rule by hand waving and basically saying a motivated person can find ambiguity in anything.

So because a rule or law can’t be defined to perfection without the slightest ambiguity then we should just have anarchy? I’m sorry for the bluntness but that’s asinine.

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

#325

Post by sacnoradhq »

Uninteresting lawyer chiseling. This is all about the making the author feel "smart" by selective (mis)interpretation of ambiguous conditions, absent information, and rules not present.

1: "In" a geographic area may or may not be defined as including or excluding a particular altitude. For example, in the US, owners only own up to 500 ft AGL in Class G airspace.

2: Some jurisdictions decide a person in a boat over someone's land isn't trespassing, while standing on the bottom of the land is.

3: What is the definition of a "vehicle"? Is use or capability of occupants definitive of vehicular status? Does it require a motor? Must it be a type requiring government registration?

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

#327

Post by AtlasBarfed »

taneq wrote: post #313
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…

So which side of the vehicle/nonvehicle line did you choose for these? Wagon, wheel chair, skateboard, surf board, parachute, roller skates, ice skates, shoes, socks.

It's not that hard. You have to understand a "park" is usually primarily some pseudo-preserve of nature, with varying degrees of permitted human recreational uses. That is what a "park" actually means.

Users of parks generally know there will be varying usage rules for the park based on the park. But generally speaking, things that will destroy the "natural perserved" aspects, things that will disrupt other people using the park, aren't allowed.

And, like moderation, if you don't understand the context of what a park is in society, you should either go there with someone that does, ask the authorities in charge of the park, or DON'T GO.

So the answer to the question is "what activities are supported by the park, do you know other people that use those implements there without controversy".

You socially interact to know. If it is a grey area, ask either someone that may know, or the authorities.

This isn't Zeno's paradoxes. You aren't asking if the vehicle is every technically being used at the park because the atoms are repelled by the electromagnetic force and things never actually touch each other.

It isn't something that needs to be solved philosophically. There are people with authoritative knowledge, and you ask them the questions, and they give a "yes or no". And you either obey their judgement, or you break the rules.

If the AI (because this HAS to be about AI, why else is this dribble here) can't understand the context, it won't effectively moderate.

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

#328

Post by tuatoru »

sacnoradhq wrote: post #325

Uninteresting lawyer chiseling. This is all about the making the author feel "smart" by selective (mis)interpretation of ambiguous conditions, absent information, and rules not present. 1: "In" a geographic area may or may not be defined as including or excluding a particular altitude. For example, in the US, owners only own up to 500 ft AGL in Class G airspace. 2: Some jurisdictions decide a person in a boat over so…

The point of the exercise is to require you to make decisions under uncertain conditions with limited (or next to no) information.

You don't know what jurisdiction. You don't know what airspace rules apply. "Vehicle" has its common-usage definition. (Which is different for different people, judgung by the comments here.)

BTW, the vast, vast majority of real decisions are made under uncertainty. Welcome to the real world.

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

#329

Post by sarchertech »

Fatnino wrote: post #298
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…

Seriously. I read the rule and I hear "keep the park a park". Only the car is forbidden and everything else goes.

Same here. I looked at the intent of the rule given the context. Rules are enforced by humans not robots and are meaningless without context.

When you do try to enforce rules literally, you end up with kids being expelled because they brought an action figure to school, or teenagers being executed because they fell into a flower bed.

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

#330

Post by tempestn »

semiquaver wrote: post #35
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…

Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.

Interestingly, some people added others that weren't explicit in the rule. For example, the person riding a skateboard was considered a violation by roughly twice as many people as the person carrying one, despite both being identical on the "is a vehicle" and "in the park" axes. I suppose unless someone's definition of vehicle depends on it being in use.
Post reply on HN