You won't agree with me. And that's normal.
-
As it turns out, it's really really hard to get people to agree on even basic rules. This is something I've seen in lots of contexts.
D&D rules? Even the "clear" ones cause debate. Software requirements? No meeting of the minds. Forum rules? I'm in the right, he's over the line. Etc.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
it's really really hard to get people to agree on even basic rules
The car is a clear violation. Ambulance and police are a clear case of "there should be an exception for this, but you specifically said there isn't". Tank memorial was on the brink, but it's a vehicle. Bike, boat, hand wagon are probably a language thing, but not vehicles for me.
Everything else seems to be commonly understood meaning, and why "I'm so smart, I'll rules lawyer my way out of this" generally doesn't hold up in court. Unless you're a lawyer, in which case that's exactly your job. We don't need logjam to communicate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfxGR0K9jA&t=115&start=115
Filed under: disagreeing in the spirit of the thread
Filed under2: Reading more than the first paragraph
-
-
@topspin The discussion in the article goes on to show that the results are deceptive. Specifically, that "majority" thing? Isn't really a majority. Only ~11% of people actually picked the "most commonly accepted answer" for all the questions. Basically, it's got a huge tail of disagreement on at least one of the options.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
@topspin The discussion in the article goes on to show that the results are deceptive. Specifically, that "majority" thing? Isn't really a majority. Only ~11% of people actually picked the "most commonly accepted answer" for all the questions. Basically, it's got a huge tail of disagreement on at least one of the options.
Yes, I figured (specifically, see the "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing" part).
I'm not quite sure how it arrived at "96%", since that seems ... totally incompatible with the choices.@loopback0 said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
I'll have to disagree with that color scheme.
-
I had some pretty not agreeing views on what constitutes "in" and "vechicle"...
-
I haven’t looked at it but rest assured, you’re wrong.
-
Also, if you use the strict interpretation of "fordon" you get something like 52%.
Fordon is a ground based mode of transport that does not run on rail. So, anything water, air or train does not count. Nor does toys that don't transport things (or people)...
-
@Carnage said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Fordon is a ground based mode of transport that does not run on rail. So, anything water, air or train does not count.
So … as this is a thread about rules-lawyering, I guess this isn’t a fordon, then:
But like this it is:
?
-
@Gurth said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
@Carnage said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Fordon is a ground based mode of transport that does not run on rail. So, anything water, air or train does not count.
So … as this is a thread about rules-lawyering, I guess this isn’t a fordon, then:
But like this it is:
?
Yep. Good choice of example. I like the way that tank was prone to internal fuel leaks so much so that after a day the crew was in 1-2 dm of gasoline.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
As it turns out, it's really really hard to get people to agree on even basic rules. This is something I've seen in lots of contexts.
D&D rules? Even the "clear" ones cause debate. Software requirements? No meeting of the minds. Forum rules? I'm in the right, he's over the line. Etc.
As we used to say when trying to code to a standard, "the S in ISO is silent".
(Literal case in point: The ISO 8583 standard for financial transactions specifies that amounts, in any currency, consist of 18 numeric digits. But it doesn't say whether tthat's ASCII, EBCDIC, or BCD with two digits per character. And of course, each team on a project of any size to support will interpret the "standard" in whatever format came to them in a dream one night.)
-
@da-Doctah said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
And of course, each team on a project of any size to support will interpret the "standard" in whatever format came to them in a dream one night.
Standards as a way to frustrate interoperability...
-
-
For the record, this has been proven time and time again every time you have to sign any sort of contract, even if it's to say you've read and agree to the pool rules at the local community center. The contract you're signing is often thicker than a phone book.
And no park I've been to ever said "no vehicles." It's almost always "no motor vehicles" which really narrows things down a lot more.
-
Think of armchairs and reading chairs and dining-room chairs, and kitchen chairs, chairs that pass into benches, chairs that cross the boundary and become settees, dentist’s chairs, thrones, opera stalls, seats of all sorts, those miraculous fungoid growths that cumber the floor of arts and crafts exhibitions, and you will perceive what a lax bundle in fact is this simple straightforward term. In cooperation with an intelligent joiner I would undertake to defeat any definition of chair or chairishness that you gave me.
—H.G. Wells
-
@Carnage said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
I had some pretty not agreeing views on what constitutes "in" and "vechicle"...
I think we use the
emoji for anything under 50%.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
As it turns out, it's really really hard to get people to agree on even basic rules. This is something I've seen in lots of contexts.
D&D rules? Even the "clear" ones cause debate. Software requirements? No meeting of the minds. Forum rules? I'm in the right, he's over the line. Etc.
Some of the disagreement is legit. Most of the disagreement is that most people are morons, and, despite the instructions, people are unable to separate "Should X be allowed?" from "Is X a vehicle in the park?"
I only agreed with the majority 59% of the time. I suspect that I would agree with other programmers a higher percentage than that, because at least they have some ability to think about things analytically, even when it goes against common sense.
-
@Watson said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Think of armchairs and reading chairs and dining-room chairs, and kitchen chairs, chairs that pass into benches, chairs that cross the boundary and become settees, dentist’s chairs, thrones, opera stalls, seats of all sorts, those miraculous fungoid growths that cumber the floor of arts and crafts exhibitions, and you will perceive what a lax bundle in fact is this simple straightforward term. In cooperation with an intelligent joiner I would undertake to defeat any definition of chair or chairishness that you gave me.
—H.G. WellsI used to work for a company that did legal consulting for patent litigation. One of the other people there would ask interview candidates to come up with a definition of "pie". Inventing definitions of words is a big part of patent litigation.
-
@topspin said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Bike, boat, hand wagon are probably a language thing, but not vehicles for me.
I was going to say in CA they are. Then I checked.
Under California law, a bicycle is not considered a vehicle in the matter of traffic rules and regulations, but bicycle operation is still governed by many of the same traffic laws.
And are governed by the CA Vehicle Code.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
And no park I've been to ever said "no vehicles." It's almost always "no motor vehicles" which really narrows things down a lot more.
Around here it almost always is “no vehicles”, possibly with “except bikes”. It is somewhat narrowed down by the fact the “vehicles” (and “motor vehicles”) reference the definitions in the road law, so they are somewhat more specific than just plain meaning of the word. And curiously according to that definition, Segway is not a vehicle (bike is, I'm not sure about skateboard), and an electric scooter is not a motor vehicle.
-
@topspin said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Bike, boat, hand wagon are probably a language thing, but not vehicles for me.
It's not only a language thing, but a legal thing. In my country, a vehicle is defined, legally, as "any mechanical system , with or without means of propulsion, used on a road, typically used for transporting goods and/or persons" . The code specifically excludes skateboards and skates. So for those in my country who know the law (not many) a vehicle includes hand wagons, wheelbarrows, strollers. I'm not sure about the wheelchair and the toycar, they fit the definition...
-
@Bulb Well, naturally, a segway is a vehicle for disabled people and thus allowed everywhere walking is allowed. Just about anything which does not conform to traditional vehicle shapes is only allowed under the label of a disability vehicle.
-
-
@VirginiaN said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
@topspin said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Bike, boat, hand wagon are probably a language thing, but not vehicles for me.
In my country, a vehicle is defined, legally, as "any mechanical system , with or without means of propulsion, used on a road, typically used for transporting goods and/or persons" .
Well, that just means if it's in the park, then it's not being used on a road, therefore it's fine!
-
@The_Quiet_One said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
@VirginiaN said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
@topspin said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Bike, boat, hand wagon are probably a language thing, but not vehicles for me.
In my country, a vehicle is defined, legally, as "any mechanical system , with or without means of propulsion, used on a road, typically used for transporting goods and/or persons" .
Well, that just means if it's in the park, then it's not being used on a road, therefore it's fine!But when there are roads in the park...
-
@The_Quiet_One said in You won't agree with me. And that's normal.:
Well, that just means if it's in the park, then it's not being used on a road, therefore it's fine!And there are no such things as off-road vehicles.
