12 ms·
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 situa
by bhaney 3y ago
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 being in the park.
Yes, I'm aware this has nothing to do with the point of the exercise.
- glitcher 3y agoSeems like a very fair nitpick to me considering the semantic nature of the game in the first place!
- semiquaver 3y agoGiven 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.
- tempestn 3y agoInterestingly, 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.
- semiquaver 3y agoDespite 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 brain that applies past experiences to every new situation.
- pitched 3y agoHow about some sort of pedestrian sky bridge? No vehicles but also no carried skateboards for fear of dropping it.
- lancefisher 3y agoIt’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 wilderness on their trips. What do they do? They take apart the bike and pack it, because you are allowed to have bike parts in the wilderness.
- bentcorner 3y ago> 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?
- eyelidlessness 3y agoA unicycle is definitionally not a bicycle, but any rule for bikes in this hypothetical would surely also apply to unicycles.
- precommunicator 3y agoThere should be a question then, "4 people carry a small car into the park"
- sundvor 3y agoYeah 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%.
- hunter2_ 3y agoYou draw the line between ISS and commercial airplane? That seems like an odd place for it. I would think the limit of "in" would be at the prevailing treeline or maybe requires ground contact (I haven't fully decided yet), and beyond that it's "above" rather then "in." The problem with treeline (or any similar threshold) is that even having that defined doesn't solve for the fact that we don't know the altitude of the quadcopter. That's why I'm leaning more toward ground contact.
- lostlogin 3y agoDoes touching water or snow count as ground contact?
- hunter2_ 3y agoYes, any liquid or solid works to maintain contact. Gas eliminates contact. Otherwise you could say shoes prevent contact! Just like "contactless" payment cards, which for some reason involves the word "tap" as well, even though tapping is the act of making brief contact, and is not required for the communication to succeed, and that successful communication could be referred to as making contact, but I digress.
- fragmede 3y agoThings don't even actually touch each other though. At no point does an atom of my stuff make contact with an atom of your stuff, right? things can be uncomfortably close to each other but the Van der Waals forces mean it'll never actually touch. to be pedantic.
- aidenn0 3y agoIf I stab someone in the eye with a pencil, then the pencil was clearly a weapon. However, I'm not violating a "no weapons" policy simply by carrying a pencil.
- oezi 3y agoIt is funny that you say so because for me the primary axis was about whether the rule was violated or not. This is why some people (including myself) chose that an ambulance driven into a park wouldn't be a violation of the rule.
- ckolkey 3y agoBut it is a violation. I guess from my perspective it was a justified violation of the rule, but it was still a violation
- oezi 3y agoDepends on the meaning of rule and violation I guess. I interpreted it as a sign posted at the entrance of the park. I interpreted violation as something that would be stopped by the park rangers.
- delecti 3y agoTheir point is that "was the rule violated" is a combination of "is a vehicle" and "in the park", hence both axes are relevant factors. If pushed, I would concede that the ISS is a vehicle, but I would consider the bounds of the park to end far lower than where the ISS orbits, so despite being "a vehicle" it doesn't violate the rule because I don't consider it "in the park". "Is it in the park" isn't relevant for most of the questions, but it's still an important part of the premise.
- l0b0 3y agoSame - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.
- pix128 3y agoThe plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.
- patmcc 3y agoWhat if I fly a helicopter 10 feet off the ground, in the area of the park. Is that 'over' or 'through'?
- Qwertious 3y agoGiven that a helicopter at that speed is a clear hazard to anyone below it and will blow a person below it off their feet, and could easily be pushed around or into the ground at any time (sudden gusts of winds do happen, although I have no real experience with helicopters so I may be wrong on some specifics), that is through. "the park" includes not only the ground, but also a certain area above the ground - otherwise someone riding a bike through the park wouldn't be in the park (as they are not touching the ground) but their bike would be. That would be absurd.
- patmcc 3y agoOk. What about 20ft off the ground? 50? 100? 200? 350? You see the issue, yah?
- notyoutube 3y ago
- adrr 3y agoPosting “racial epithets” is banned on social networks but if I post a video of a politician saying a racial epithet to raise awareness. Does that violate the rule? We aren’t debating whether or not it was a racial epithet.
- lostlogin 3y agoI didn’t get that question.
- lacker 3y agoThat 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 one extremely prominent link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? How prominent? Etc etc etc.
- racked 3y agoThis is why Reddit is banned in Indonesia; because there's a bit of porn. Now laypeople just use Twitter instead...
- bhaney 3y ago"a bit"
- predictabl3 3y agoHehe, that's a fair take, but I must also mention that I've encountered far more porn unwittingly/unexpectedly on Twitter than I EVER, ever, ever have on reddit. Again speaking to the utility of moderation in general.
- flangola7 3y agoHow do you encounter porn? It's not even allowed, other than age gated softcore shit.
- atdrummond 3y agoI assure you there is far more than softcore and often on accounts where it isn’t obvious until you’ve viewed the offending tweet that there may be X-Rated audiovisual content. I’m sure much of it violates the rules but my initial inclination is always to browse away, not report.
- girafffe_i 3y agoYou aren't challenging your assumption of "in" How far does the airspace extend?
- talaketu 3y agoIf "in the park" is meant as an analogy for "on the platform" in content moderation, then curiously enough Twitter suspended @RealDonaldTrump for off-park action (Jan 6).
- planckscnst 3y agoThe "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.
- Rapzid 3y agoWagons are vehicles in the strictest since.
- emmelaich 3y agoWhy use a strictest sense? Why not a sense considered appropriate assuming the context?
- Rapzid 3y agoThe context is: > You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
- emmelaich 3y agoThat doesn't affect at all what you consider a vehicle or what the meaning of 'in' is.
- smcin 3y agoIf I bring a box of chocolate cars into the park and eat them, that's a violation too, right? (If Schrodinger brings a backpack into the park but doesn't know what's in it, is that a violation? Did you pack your own luggage today, sir/maam?)
- Ekaros 3y agoThis 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.
- tracerbulletx 3y agoYeah it raises potential ontological issues about the words "vehicles", "in", "rule" and probably others.
- codetrotter 3y agoThey’ve updated the labels now I think. Unless there are some other labels I am not seeing. The labels at the end now say: > You think it is not a vehicle in the park > You think it is a vehicle in the park
- bhaney 3y agoHa, so they have
- irjustin 3y ago> Yes, I'm aware this has nothing to do with the point of the exercise. No actually I do think it does and is captured beautifully in the game. Things that clearly once vehicles are arguably no longer - like the war tank. Like Michelangelo's David, is the nudity porn? is it obscene? for who? Is this a website about art? or a porn site? education site? a site for children? Each one of those sites have differing views of the exact same thing. Love this exercise.
- asveikau 3y agoNobody 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.
- Gigachad 3y agoI 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.
- nocoiner 3y agoYes, 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 public park space.” But that wasn’t absolute - the non-functional tank was, in my mind, quite obviously a vehicle, and so was prohibited. Someone at a higher pay grade is going to have to make an exception there. The skydiver - ehhh, it was a stretch to call him a vehicle, but by my heuristic he broke the sign’s rule.
- 3y ago
- sodapopcan 3y agoNo, I felt a bit "betrayed" by this as well but also probably the point of the exercise? I dunno. Obviously there is rhyme to reason as to why you're offered to skip after 7 questions. I'm not sure why, but somewhere after 10 I started to feel like I wanted to go back and re-answer.
- ssnistfajen 3y agoIt's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each individual applies differently towards their decision making. This is exactly why content moderation has trouble to stay consistent and rarely pleases everyone, because so many nuances from non-intersecting aspects of logic/context/culture/opinions are forced to consolidate into a binary choice (violation vs. non-violation).
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoNo, you missed the point entirely. The question was whether the scenario is a violation but the answers were not labeled accordingly. For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault
- ssnistfajen 3y agoTell me you've never done (or thought about) content moderation without telling me you've never done or thought about content moderation. Rules are pedantic by their nature, that's the whole point of interpreting them.
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoYou've missed the point of my comment too. We all agree that the exercise is pedantic by design, and that the goal of the exercise is to show how much variance there is in interpreting them. The point, that you've missed twice now, is that the results are presented using incorrect language.
- ssnistfajen 3y agoA point that does not exist is a point that's not possible to be missed. It's okay to admit you don't know anything about content moderation, and frankly it's a blessing to not know anything about it. Best of luck.
- stickfigure 3y agoSimilarly, the question asks "does it violate the rule" not "should the vehicle be allowed in the park". Of course driving an ambulance into the park violates the rule - but it's ok the break the rule for emergencies! Which of course illustrates that in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply. Especially in content moderation.
- logifail 3y ago> in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply I think it might be worse than that, there are sometimes rules which aren't actually rules which can still (sometimes!) override rules which are.
- hunter2_ 3y agoThe instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then it's "in" the park, but if it's not making contact with the ground then it's "above" the park.
- sethammons 3y agoWhen you jump, do you leave the park? If you jump really high? Or are flung via trebuchet?
- ornornor 3y agoI was thinking along these lines as well but after reading the explanation at the end of the game, I’m not so sure. The rule is no vehicles in the park. I’ve also concluded that an ambulance or police responding to a call didn’t violate the rule but saw that a lot of people seemed to think it did. And it made me think. The rules say to not apply any other rule but the stated one. And if you follow the rule to the letter, a police car in the park is a vehicle in the park , violates the rule. It’s dumb but it does. Common sense says it shouldn’t but the rule says it does and the instructions say to only consider the rule with no nuance.
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoThe instructions beforehand were very clear that you should answer whether the scenario violated the rule, not whether it should be allowed. I suppose that's the beauty, intentional or not, of this exercise... Since the point was to highlight human behavior your response is still a valid, important datapoint despite you "failing" to complete the exercise according to the instructions.
- zerocrates 3y agoDid 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.