The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by sarchertech on Saturday June 24, 2023 @08:28AM (#36458123)

Imagine there’s a military bombing range full of unexploded ordinance. The sign outside the range simply says “Keep off the grass”.

In the situation where context is different than what a reasonable person would expect, it has to be included. Language changes meaning depending on context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by hgsgm on Saturday June 24, 2023 @10:35AM (#36459021)

The point is that language is unavoidably ambiguous (I'm sure there's a mathematical information theory proof of this, akin to the Byzantine Generals problem.).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by dudeinjapan on Monday June 26, 2023 @11:27AM (#36480957)

"DANGER!! Unexploded ordinance! High risk of death!" is far less ambiguous than "Keep off grass". The former is sufficiently unambiguous that it will deter any sane person from entering.

[ Parent | on HN ]