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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by elishah »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #784
cgriswald wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of a definition of vehicle I chose to define it as any device that is a conveyance. Thus a wagon, rowboat, and skateboard are all vehicles in the park (even if not in use). However, the tank was not functional. Since it cannot convey it is therefore not a conveyance and therefore not a vehicle. It’s only shaped like a familiar one. I matched the majority only 11% of the time.

I applied the same mental model and also ended with 11%. It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).

> It's a vehicle if it is transporting people, things, or itself (e.g., the R/C car).

If transporting oneself counts, are all the people in the park vehicles? And all other animals, down to the microorganisms, that are capable of self-transport?

Or I suppose even in the case of transporting other things, people would count as vehicles if they are carrying anything or wearing clothes?

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

#932

Post by jodrellblank »

GTP wrote: post #586
Etherlord87 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now you're assuming the intent. No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. > The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff. Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. > But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them. I agree with you here, it…

> If the test asked "should violator be punished?" I think it would be more meaningful, otherwise it's just synthetic and the controversy is just about semantics This is how I interpreted the test, but you're making a good point.

The test says not to interpret it like that:

"please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

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

#933

Post by paulclinger »

andrewflnr wrote: post #880
paulclinger wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with the parent comment, as I think the context is important here. If you think the emergency service vehicles violate the rule, how about a park maintenance vehicle or a park ranger vehicle? Would you say "no vehicles in the park" rule applies to them too, so they would be violating it?

The whole exercise specifically asked us to ignore context, "common sense", etc. If we were supposed to consider an exception for park services, it would have been explicitly stated. Of all the forums for an insistence on rigidly, literally following rules to make people's heads explode, HN is not exactly the most surprising, but it is one of the funniest.

To me that's precisely the point: since vehicle itself is not defined and is a subject to interpretation, excluding emergency services is less of a problem than carving out an accurate boundary around what is or is not a vehicle.

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

#934

Post by jodrellblank »

raverbashing wrote: post #506
qnpnp wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.

Correct. But you (and the experimenter) are assuming that rules exist in a vacuum, which in practice it isn't

No the experimenter doesn't assume that, they say: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

The intent of the experiment is to get your view on whether X is a vehicle or not, and whether Y counts as a place "in the park" or not.

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

#935

Post by itronitron »

mrtksn wrote: post #489
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too smal…

>> instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this"

I'm going to assume that those buttons were placed out of the reach of most three year-olds.

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

#936

Post by hamburglar »

mint2 wrote: post #324
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 tri…

Hah, I got 11% and I selected the car, the police, the ambulance and the tank. Does everyone just get 11% no matter what?

Edit: reading further, yes, everyone gets 11%.

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

#937

Post by fragmede »

angry_octet wrote: post #201
lacker wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like good analogy to content moderation. You have to ask "is the forbidden content actually on the site?" For example you can have a rule like "no sharing pornographic content", but then are people allowed to share links to forbidden content? Links to sites that are 100% links to forbidden content? Links to sites that have one link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? Links to sites that have o…

That is a pretty clear distinction. A separate site has separate administration, can be blocked separately, etc. Otherwise you have additional rules: disallow direct links to forbidden content that causes it to render on the page, disallow linking to specific forbidden content, disallow links to on blacklisted domains, allow only whitelisted domain links.

What if it's a discussion about Terms of Service (ToS), and for some particular reason the Pornhub's ToS is relevant? The site itself is nsfw but if someone makes a claim that their tos says it's okay to kick puppies then you kind of have to link to it to support your claim. And how many ways around linking directly to the domain are there? hub for pron, bay of pirates, etc.

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

#938

Post by [deleted] »

dahart wrote: post #885
dang wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. The intro to the quiz asks you to answer the questions literally, but by asking this the author kind of assumes their own conclusion. I wonder how much consensus there would be if the intro asked you to go by the intent of the rule as you understand it, rather than what it literally says. The first time I went through the quiz, I followed the instructions and had to think about definitions a lot. Then I r…

> People will get mad, but people are going to get mad no matter what you do, and at least you won't have to argue about whether a bicycle is a vehicle. The quiz epilogue said something along the same lines. Basically the point was to prove with these questions that corner cases always exist, and the system can never be perfect, and therefore we’re screwed and might want to give up. “pinning down a definition is usua…

[deleted]

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

#939

Post by kazinator »

Here is something else. During the pandemic, I went through MacDonald's drive-in on bicycle, because you couldn't go into the restaurant.

I was refused service because I was not a vehicle, and since only the drive-in was operating, I was absolutely refused service.

They claimed it was for safety.

Though technically it is true that a bicycle is not a vehicle according to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, the Act also says:

"a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle"

The drive-through road constitutes a highway, according to the definition, which includes

"every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, ..."

and

"every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited"

By a kind of stretch "rights" should include being treated the same by a drive-in for vehicles. :)

I actually cited this to them, but in the end it was come back with a car or no service.

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

#940

Post by elishah »

mint2 wrote: post #334
wvenable wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vehicle is a word with a dictionary definition -- why does it need to have a definition included? Would that definition not include other words, would those also need to be defined?

No pill capsules in the park then? aren’t they a vehicle for delivering medicine?

Better not bring in the deed to your house, either. That's clearly an investment vehicle.
Post reply on HN