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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by bandyaboot »

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…

> For the first few months until I got my white collar job, I did some part time jobs in London as a waiter etc. and worked at some high end venues and hotels. In these places there are some equipments(like climate control of the wine cellar) which are operated through control panels which are accessible to everyone and they didn't put signs that say "don't touch", instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this". They were able to keep curious hands away from buttons that shouldn't be pushed by those who don't know what they are doing by simply emphasising the intent.

Do you actually know that the latter sign is more effective than “don’t touch”? If it actually is, there are other possible explanations. The fact that it’s personally addressed to “you” could make it more effective. The fact that it’s simply a more unique/unexpected way to convey the message may cause people to be less likely to reflexively dismiss the more common directive of “don’t touch”.

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

#962

Post by Aeolun »

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 a bizarre conclusion. I don’t agree at all, which by itself kibd of invalidates your conclusion.

“It’s clear to me, therefore it’s clear to everyone.”

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

#963

Post by jrm4 »

subarctic wrote: post #315
jrm4 wrote: post #243

Lawyer here. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "if they wrote the laws clearer..." nope. nope nope nope. This is not how it works.

I'm not sure what your point is. The laws can't be written clearer? Even if they were, you'd still get stuff that's ambiguous? As a lawyer you don't write the law so you have to go with what's written? You like interpreting vaguely written rules?

Not that it's impossible to improve things, but people (frequently techies) believe the problem to be solvable and relatedly think it's easier than it actually is.

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

#964

Post by jrm4 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #367
jrm4 wrote: post #243

Lawyer here. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "if they wrote the laws clearer..." nope. nope nope nope. This is not how it works.

You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers? Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed". You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this…

Oh, in this case, sure -- but I think it's a great teaching tool in getting people to understand the difficulty in other cases, and perhaps more importantly, understanding that these things are not solvable and that the essence of the very purpose of law is to have a method to get through these "not fully solvable" things.

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

#965

Post by wnc3141 »

noduerme wrote: post #668
mrtksn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Two things really jump out at me.. I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of an…

I think what you are noticing is the difference between a liberal democracy and autocracy. Where in one there exists a social construct of rules, where in the other rules require enforcement to exist, as they do not exist in the social consciousness

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

#966

Post by jrm4 »

subarctic wrote: post #906
Rury wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just how language works. Language is inherently ambiguous in the strictest sense. It's why at times you need to use more and more words to convey a clear message to someone, but in some sense, it's a never ending rabbit hole. Most of the time though, you don't need to be super precise in order to get a general message across to someone. Just something good enough. It's why, as some other people noted, you someti…

That's a great read, thanks for linking it. The twist at the end is kind of funny because it makes you think, "do I really get it"? I guess sometimes words just aren't enough, you need actual experience. Which I guess if we're taking legal stuff, that's where case law comes in, right?

Well, in a way, it's not "just words" or "experience?" It took me a long time to love the law, well after I was out of law school -- which was basically getting over the cynicism. It's just overwhelmingly the best method of dealing with perhaps the MOST DIFFICULT task possible, resolving disputes between/among imperfect unpredictable humans. The "messiness" of it is just as much a feature as a bug, and thus the most important part really does become, for lack of a better way to say it -- "faith?" in law?

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

#967

Post by zerocrates »

cgriswald wrote: post #709
bscphil wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. This is exactly right, I think, and in fact those who are focusing on the "intent" of the rule or on whether a violation of the rule is justified seem to have missed the clear wording of the instructions: > Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed). So the only questions…

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.

The 11% seemed odd to me... I selected only 3 violators: the car, the ambulance, and the police car, and those seem to be the only majority-chosen violators according to the graph so I would think I matched 100%?

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

#968

Post by xdennis »

paxys wrote: post #132
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.

I'm far more worried about the people who think a man should die because the sign must be obeyed at all costs.

It's telling that 70% would apply immoral guidance. "Just following orders."

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

#969

Post by xdennis »

wvenable wrote: post #308
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.

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?

That's not how the law typically works. Laws provide their own definitions because dictionaries describe how the language is typically used, not in a precise manner.

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

#970

Post by Aeolun »

Freedom2 wrote: post #958
noduerme wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things really jump out at me.. I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of an…

I grew up overseas, moved to America and I have felt absolutely liberated by the freedom I now have when it comes to following rules. I think it's productive that people can definitely choose to follow their own gut and conscience when it comes to their own lives.

I moved to Japan. I think we’re almost at the level where I’m confortable with the level of rule following here.

Some people don’t follow the unimportant rules, but almost never when it’d inconvenience someone else.

Post reply on HN