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

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

#471

Post by 9dev » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:46 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #358

raldi wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn't think a bicycle violated the rule, what about an e-bike? Or a fully battery-powered bike that doesn't require pedaling?

I love my fully battery powered ebike but I am well aware they are prohibited pretty much everywhere. When filling out the form I figured a bike is not a vehicle because they tend to be explicitly spelled out, but ebikes are more often prohibited (though in my area, not enforced), and my overpowered ebike is illegal everywhere, but I am respectful of others and there is no enforcement.

You made the assumption the start screen explicitly asked users to not make, that is apply their local laws to the question.

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

#472

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:48 AM UTC

carstenhag wrote: post #436

Qwertious wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…

See, even there for me it's rather a "firefighters/police have an exemption to the rules". For you it's "firefighters/police are breaking the rule but it's fine".

[deleted]

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

#473

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

nocoiner wrote: post #296

asveikau wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, defined terms are critical. As the exercise went on, I kept refining my mental model of what a “vehicle” was in the context of the park sign. 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 publ…

Horse is a fun one. I started to wonder does putting saddle and reins on one change things... So if you ride without them it is fine, but if you put those on it becomes a vehicle...

Travois is other one I kinda struggled... Just a a-frame even if you drag it in clearly is not one to me.

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

#474

Post by fwlr » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

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…

What was your answer on the wheelchair? Same as for bicycle, or different? If different, what about a wheelchair but the person in it doesn’t need a wheelchair, they just enjoy the sporting aspect of arm-powered vehicles?

The other way I would “problematize” (to borrow the author’s wording) your crystal-clear understanding is to ask about the matchbox car, then the remote control car, then one of those kid-size toy cars that the kid drives around (then a small one-person electric car, then a full-size electric car).

I suppose another angle would be, are bicycles okay? What about battery-powered bicycles? Does it change if we add a small petrol motor to recharge the battery?

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

#475

Post by ifdefdebug » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

The sheer size and endless bike shedding in this comment section proves that the author is after something here.

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

#476

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:52 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.

This lead me to question about size. Clearly a traditional animal dragged sized one is a vehicle. But those small ones pulled by hand are not.

Same goes for things like kites and quadrocopters.

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

#477

Post by zekica » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:55 AM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #456

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 thought it was clear and obvious and then at the end I learned I agree with the majority only 12% of the time.

Same, I agreed with the majority only 11% of the time.

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

#478

Post by Ekaros » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:56 AM UTC

I think this missed one more axis, or didn't go deep enough.

What if someone mines under the park? And uses things like carts or mining vehicles there? Are those "in" the park or not?

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

#479

Post by az226 » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:56 AM UTC

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…

Ehm. I answered that the cop and ambulance were in violation of the rule, but it’s sometimes okay to break the rules. That doesn’t mean they didn’t break the rules — it means they were justified in breaking the rules.

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

#480

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 6:57 AM UTC

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…

Yes I'd say it's "unclear to follow" to adversarial (or just nitpicking) people

(Also) because we have a context of a park and of general rules. (Also if you think the ISS is a vehicle on the park you're welcome to try to enforce that)