News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by flaminHotSpeedo on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:58AM (#36456584)
Ignoring the fact that many of the corner crossing cases were bad faith arguments by landowners intentionally attempting to abuse the situation, I don't think anyone would argue that the park boundary is a prism that extends vertically to infinity.

So where do you draw the line?

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by jrockway on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:13PM (#36461789)
It definitely extends to infinity. Why would it stop somewhere?
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by zerocrates on Saturday June 24, 2023 @09:17PM (#36464307)
Why wouldn't it? If you think most people would consider a satellite passing overhead, an airplane flying high overhead, the Moon, the Sun, other objects in space etc. when directly overhead to be "in" a park, I think you'd be mistaken. And the results here bear that out, at least to the limited extent there were relevant questions.

Similarly a subway train passing underneath the park is not "in" the park, nor are vehicles that are at the antipode of the park on the polar opposite side of the Earth.

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by flaminHotSpeedo on Monday June 26, 2023 @07:27PM (#36487198)
So you're saying that, for parks in there right location, for brief periods of time, parts of other plants, stars, and space are "part of the park"