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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by Gigachad »

fragmede wrote: post #952
Gigachad wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it really matters. The point I guess was that an ambulance or police car is obviously a vehicle, and obviously in the park. And yet enforcing this seemingly simple and logical rule becomes so absurd that some people would decide that a police car is not a vehicle just because it should be allowed in.

why is that the solution, and not that the police are allowed to break the rules?

The first page said to not make your own assumptions about the local laws, but to simply select if the rule as written has been violated.

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

#972

Post by xdennis »

fragmede wrote: post #954
dagurp wrote: post #950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know what they think is unsafe about this.

if the car behind or in front of you crashes into you, a human on a bicycle, the damage is much greater than if it crashes into another car. If you assume the other driver is drunk, and stomps on the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal, in some ridiculous souped up sports car or truck, the human goes squish.

How is this unsafe for McDonalds?

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

#973

Post by nektro »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435
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, 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.

Communities are built on intent and learning the culture of the group. Anyone who does not understand this should get into law, not internet moderation.

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

#974

Post by zerocrates »

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…

Did this change? For me it says "You think it is (not) a vehicle in the park," which doesn't match with your description of your issue with the results.

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

#975

Post by [deleted] »

SamWhited wrote: post #755
HWR_14 wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. There was no mention of a medical emergency, just an EMT driving an ambulance. Police officers may or may not have jurisdiction in the area and there was no evidence the emergency was even a police matter. The EMT driving through the gate to watch the music festival, and the police officer driving through the park during mid-202…

> There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. The prompts were: "In an emergency, Neil, an EMT, drives his ambulance into the park" and "In an emergency, Laurie, a police officer, drives her police car into the park."

[deleted]

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

#977

Post by ziml77 »

I expected this to be tough, but it was even tougher than that! I treated it purely as an exercise in classifying what is a vehicle and what it means to be in the park.

Skateboards really tripped me up because I don't think of roller skates as a vehicle but I do think of bikes as a vehicle. Skateboards feel like they sit right between those two.

The wagon was another tough one because the kids riding in it certainly seems very vehicle-like to me. And the stroller felt even more like a vehicle to me (ultimately I didn't choose to classify either of those as vehicles).

I said the horse wasn't a vehicle, but I said the rowboat was.

I didn't classify the RC car as a vehicle, but the classification of a quadcopter was tough because of that. I wanted to consider it a vehicle, but I couldn't think of it as far enough off of an RC car to be one.

I tried to figure out some logic for my classifications but I really couldn't it was all down to feel and making sure that I didn't clearly contradict a previous decision. My answers may have been different had they been presented in another order or even just if my mood was a bit different!

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

#978

Post by jjcon »

mint2 wrote: post #774
jjcon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly the point - who defines racism? sexism? Moderators are going to disagree because of how nebulous those terms are

The world isn’t black and white. It’s typically shades of gray and requires judgement, discretion. And consequences of breaking a rule or law require even more judgement. The world isn’t a “smart”contract.

Precisely well said

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

#979

Post by fragmede »

xdennis wrote: post #972
fragmede wrote: post #954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the car behind or in front of you crashes into you, a human on a bicycle, the damage is much greater than if it crashes into another car. If you assume the other driver is drunk, and stomps on the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal, in some ridiculous souped up sports car or truck, the human goes squish.

How is this unsafe for McDonalds?

The person getting squished, or the family of that person is going to sue McDonald's

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

#980

Post by jaza »

dTP90pN wrote: post #666
jaza wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I answered in the same way. I chose to interpret the rule as "no functioning registered terrestrial road vehicles", in which case emergency vehicles are violating the rule.

So you would've considered the Honda Civic to not be violating the rule, if it had been unregistered?

Hmmm, maybe I should have said "any supposed-to-be-registered vehicle"!
Post reply on HN