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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by bentcorner »

lancefisher wrote: post #365
semiquaver wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the instructions explicitly saying not to I suspect many people (like me) could not help but “look through” the stated rule to infer its intent, especially for the more unusual examples. It’s quite a lot harder to imagine a real world rule that prohibits a carried skateboard vs one being used, even if both situations represent the same 2-vector in the rule’s truth table. It’s hard to turn off the part of your…

It’s funny, I first thought the game was going to be a commentary on the “no mechanical transport in the wilderness” rule that he mentioned at the end. You cannot have a bicycle in the wilderness. You can’t push it or carry it. I guess this simplifies enforcement. If someone is camped with a bike, they can be ticketed. I have friends that do long bike camping trips, and they sometimes want to pass through areas of wi…

> because you are allowed to have bike parts in the wilderness.

I would love for someone to try disassembling less of the bike and still getting ticketed, just to see how that line ends up getting drawn. Is a bike without a seat still a bike? What about a bike with no tires? Does 50% of the bike need to be "contiguous" to be considered a bike? If it can be ridden? What if there are no pedals? Is a unicycle considered a bike?

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

#372

Post by QuadrupleA »

Drew_ wrote: post #352
QuadrupleA wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about finding the particular jurisdiction. It's that any jurisdiction will have almost all of this stuff in common. If we're not even taking about earth or this universe then discussion is probably hopeless...

> It's that any jurisdiction will have almost all of this stuff in common. I'm not sure how you could say something like this so earnestly... All parks on Earth have the same rules on vehicles? You sure about that?

About space stations, ambulances, matchbox cars, and the rest of it I'd venture yes. The only one that seemed remotely jurisdiction-dependent was bicycles.

Can you name a single real park that denies entry to police or ambulances or wheelchairs?

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

#373

Post by shrikant »

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…

Time to wheel out this old classic then: https://cuberule.com/

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

#374

Post by default-kramer »

cypress66 wrote: post #343
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…

It seems more like you didn't read the instructions > Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

I did read the instructions and I also assumed that I should use my judgment to determine whether the intent of the sign was violated. If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be."

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

#376

Post by Barrin92 »

What this showcases isn't an issue with moderation, it's a lack of shared culture in digital spaces.

When we interact in the real world we manage to behave not because we have some sort of logical crystal palace where every word is rigorously defined, but because we have an implicit, shared sensibility for what's appropriate. When you go and sit down in a café you don't measure your noise level and there's no sign saying "only talk at 80db!", you have an intuitive and non-verbal idea of what offends the people around you.

If people disagree about the questions in this experiment the correct conclusion isn't to do away with moderation or argue about word definitions, it's to argue for shared culture in online spaces. HN is a good example. Most people who post here I think have a decent grasp of how not to act, and take little offense with moderation, despite the fact that there aren't many rules other than the occasional reminder to be civil.

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

#377

Post by chrismorgan »

derefr wrote: post #149

To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboar…

The problem is that it won’t always be enforced that way.

For example: in the city of Melbourne, there are sometimes signs instructing cyclists to dismount (e.g. at railway level crossings), or that you aren’t permitted to cycle in such-and-such a place (e.g. railway platform). Their illustrations always depict an upright bicycle. I ride a recumbent tricycle, which the Road Safety Road Rules considers to be a bicycle. The reasons for dismounting simply don’t apply: my wheels won’t get caught in rails and I won’t fall over, and in fact dismounting will make matters worse. And the reasons for not cycling in most of the so-marked places are seriously diminished and heavily counterbalanced: I can easily and safely travel at pedestrian speed, and I will be far more of an obstruction on your thoroughfare if you require that I stand up and awkwardly push my vehicle along, steering only with difficulty (normally mostly by nudging one of the front wheels with one foot as I walk), taking up a lot more space and not going straight or at the same speed as others. Common sense says I should ignore such signs and assess each situation individually. But I tried applying common sense like this on a railway platform once and was severely threatened with a fine. Meanwhile, mobility scooters are really pretty similar to me in contextual characteristics (my vehicle interacts in such situations much more like one of them than like an upright bicycle), but they’re fine.

(Aside: in the state of Victoria, the road rules classify my vehicle as a bicycle; but in New Zealand, the road rules classify it and bicycles as cycles, and only mention bicycles in one section, about wearing helmets. No attention is drawn to the use of a different word, but it’s clear that tricyclists are genuinely not legally required to wear helmets—which does actually make some sense, as the majority of scenarios where a helmet is beneficial to a bicyclist either don’t apply, or apply vastly less often, to recumbent tricyclists.)

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

#378

Post by willsmith72 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302
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…

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

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

#379

Post by sundvor »

tempestn wrote: post #330
semiquaver wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah applying a very loose, or perhaps pedantic, definition of vehicle (it doesn't specify size, for example) combined with a reasonable understanding of "in" ie including air space in proportion to the size of a regular park led me to say most things were in violation of the rule. Those were the only relevant factors, all the other info was fluff.

I considered ISS to be outside it, and that was pretty much it. My views weren't shared with too many, about 11%.

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

#380

Post by sangnoir »

n8cpdx wrote: post #192
sangnoir wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising. Here's a common example from real life: "No pornography". Even SCOTUS famously couldn't define obscenity ("I know it when I see it")

Is “No pornography” a rule? It doesn’t specify any prohibited action and on its own isn’t a complete thought, let alone a rule. “I know it when I see it” was in reference to _hardcore pornography_, not obscenity. The Miller Test deals with obscenity perfectly well.

> Is “No pornography” a rule? It doesn’t specify any prohibited action and on its own isn’t a complete thought, let alone a rule.

If you were to open a subreddit, or walk up to a library computer/print shop counter and saw "No Pornography" under rules - would you be unable to figure out what's being asked of you? If so, then that seems like a complete thought and a perfectly comprehendible rule to me.

Post reply on HN