3 ms·
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 maintenan
by paulclinger 3y ago
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?
- plorkyeran 3y agoYes? I don’t understand the idea that being allowed to disregard a rule means that you aren’t violating it at all.
- andrewflnr 3y agoThe 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.
- paulclinger 3y agoTo 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.