3 ms·

Okay so if we have tank with no motor is not a vehicle, and a tank with a motor is a vehicle then I have some follow up questions for you. - Is a tank with a m

Okay so if we have tank with no motor is not a vehicle, and a tank with a motor is a vehicle then I have some follow up questions for you. - Is a tank with a motor that doesn't function a vehicle? - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no keys in existence, a vehicle? - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no wheels, a vehicle? - Is a tank, empty of gas (so unable to move by its own power), but otherwise functional a vehicle?

jedberg 3y ago
Your questions are irrelvant. It didn't ask "is this a vehicle". It asked "is this a vehicle in the park". Is the tank touching the ground (yes) moving under its own power: - Is a tank with a motor that doesn't function a vehicle? No - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no keys in existence, a vehicle? No - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no wheels, a vehicle? No - Is a tank, empty of gas (so unable to move by its own power), but otherwise functional a vehicle? No Because in none of those cases can it move through the park under its own power. Like I said, there is no subjectivity here. The rules are simple and clear.
- ronald_raygun 3y ago
  > Your questions are irrelvant. It didn't ask "is this a vehicle". It asked "is this a vehicle in the park". To be a vehicle in the park, it must first be a vehicle. But your definition is bad. It basically hinges on it being able to move, which means it's "vehicle-ness" can come into an out of existence quiet flimsily (like if it's is out of gas, a tire gets popped, or the keys are lost suddenly an otherwise functional car/tank completely ceases to be a vehicle and just becomes metal?). So like you could imagine sitting there, putting gas into a car, siphoning it out, putting it back in, siphoning it back out, etc etc. Are you really in that process, changing something fundamental about the car? Another interesting question, is let's say we go to a storage lot, and we find a car that's been in storage for awhile. It was working before, it has gas in it and keys and tires and all that. But we haven't run it for awhile, and cars sometimes breakdown over time when they are just left there. So before we have had a chance to verify that the car runs, there is some non-zero chance it doesnt work, some non-zero chance it does. Is that car a vehicle?
  - jedberg 3y ago
    All interesting questions, all totally irrelevant. The entire point of the experiment is to prove that people have different definitions of things and that's why moderation is hard. But my contention is that "is this a vehicle in the park" is not a good experiment, because there is an easily applied objective rule: Did it touch the ground and move under motorized power? > To be a vehicle in the park, it must first be a vehicle. Sure, but we don't need to explore every possible vehicle. We only care about the subset of vehicles that are capable of moving under their own motorized power. So we only have to determine if it is that subset of vehicle. Your whole thing about taking gas in and out doesn't matter. If it's in the park and got there using its motor, it's a vehicle in the park. The storage lot doesn't matter. It's not in the park. The point is, this is a bad experiment. There is a simple rule to apply. This is nothing like moderating an online community. It just happens to get to the right conclusion anyway, mainly because people refuse to apply the one and only rule that matters, and want to bring in all these extra rules an assumptions that aren't relevant.

jedberg 3y ago

Your questions are irrelvant. It didn't ask "is this a vehicle". It asked "is this a vehicle in the park". Is the tank touching the ground (yes) moving under its own power: - Is a tank with a motor that doesn't function a vehicle? No - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no keys in existence, a vehicle? No - Is a tank with a functioning motor, but no wheels, a vehicle? No - Is a tank, empty of gas (so unable to move by its own power), but otherwise functional a vehicle? No Because in none of those cases can it move through the park under its own power. Like I said, there is no subjectivity here. The rules are simple and clear.

ronald_raygun 3y ago
> Your questions are irrelvant. It didn't ask "is this a vehicle". It asked "is this a vehicle in the park". To be a vehicle in the park, it must first be a vehicle. But your definition is bad. It basically hinges on it being able to move, which means it's "vehicle-ness" can come into an out of existence quiet flimsily (like if it's is out of gas, a tire gets popped, or the keys are lost suddenly an otherwise functional car/tank completely ceases to be a vehicle and just becomes metal?). So like you could imagine sitting there, putting gas into a car, siphoning it out, putting it back in, siphoning it back out, etc etc. Are you really in that process, changing something fundamental about the car? Another interesting question, is let's say we go to a storage lot, and we find a car that's been in storage for awhile. It was working before, it has gas in it and keys and tires and all that. But we haven't run it for awhile, and cars sometimes breakdown over time when they are just left there. So before we have had a chance to verify that the car runs, there is some non-zero chance it doesnt work, some non-zero chance it does. Is that car a vehicle?
- jedberg 3y ago
  All interesting questions, all totally irrelevant. The entire point of the experiment is to prove that people have different definitions of things and that's why moderation is hard. But my contention is that "is this a vehicle in the park" is not a good experiment, because there is an easily applied objective rule: Did it touch the ground and move under motorized power? > To be a vehicle in the park, it must first be a vehicle. Sure, but we don't need to explore every possible vehicle. We only care about the subset of vehicles that are capable of moving under their own motorized power. So we only have to determine if it is that subset of vehicle. Your whole thing about taking gas in and out doesn't matter. If it's in the park and got there using its motor, it's a vehicle in the park. The storage lot doesn't matter. It's not in the park. The point is, this is a bad experiment. There is a simple rule to apply. This is nothing like moderating an online community. It just happens to get to the right conclusion anyway, mainly because people refuse to apply the one and only rule that matters, and want to bring in all these extra rules an assumptions that aren't relevant.