Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by Helmut10001 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @01:38AM
(#36455893)
I also got 11%, but I only selected 3 answers that did _not_ violate the rule: The matchbox toy car, the ISS, (and something else).
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by carstenhag on Saturday June 24, 2023 @02:10AM
(#36456038)
This entire thing is showing that people have different interpretations, you can't resort to "that did _not_ violate the rule" to say that it's super obvious and the only answer.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by Helmut10001 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @04:57AM
(#36456868)
I phrased my answer a bit difficult. What I meant was exactly that, instead of stoplisting a few items, like most people appear to have done, I allow-listed only a few (which is emphasizing the fact that vastly different interpretations exist).
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by hamburglar on Saturday June 24, 2023 @05:05PM
(#36462641)
Hah, I got 11% and I selected the car, the police, the ambulance and the tank. Does everyone just get 11% no matter what?
Edit: reading further, yes, everyone gets 11%.
Also breaking a rule is fine for an emergency vehicle.
I also took away the opposite of what the author tried to convey.
But I also got a bad impression of their argumentative integrity because they tried to use a strawman extreme to illustrate their point - only it backfired.
An ill defined rule that lacks examples and definition is not a good way to prove people interpret a good faith attempt at rules differently.
And the longer explanation at the end simply dismisses off hand the notion of giving any examples or even trying to give a clear rule by hand waving and basically saying a motivated person can find ambiguity in anything.
So because we can’t get a rule or law defined to perfection without the slightest ambiguity then we should just have anarchy? I’m sorry for the bluntness but that’s asinine.