Comment by tsukikage
3 years ago
> The intro to the quiz asks you to answer the questions literally, but by asking this the author kind of assumes their own conclusion.
...and yet in this very HN discussion we have large numbers of people disagreeing about the intent of the small, clearly written intro, with each side convinced that their interpretation is the obviously correct one. I feel this does as much to support the author's thesis as the game itself.
The whole discussion hinges on the definition of "vehicle", which is not defined. If I take my definition as being "a vehicle that meets the definitions of a motor vehicle in the UK Road Traffic Act 1988, but not including those in use as emergency service vehicles" then the majority are indeed correct. And that's how I answered, because it's consistent with my expectations for a sign like that which has been placed by a human authority. If you choose the rather broader definition (from Wikipedia) of "machine that transports people or cargo" then more scenarios are excluded. But that's a more fuzzy definition too: is a remote controlled car (neither carrying people nor cargo) really not included in the category of "vehicle"? In practice you won't typically find humans placing signs with that intent.
So I agree with the parent and grand-parent comment. Without a context in which to understand the terms presented, even an apparently-clear statement and introduction can be entirely unclear. I suspect that if you pointed to an actual physical sign and a scenario unfolding in front of them, and asked people whether they objected, rather than asking as an abstract concept on a computer screen, you'd get a different distribution of answers.
Right, but Dan only has to agree with himself, not with everybody else who reads the guidelines and tries to extrapolate from them.