Same, the only three I marked as violating the rule were the car, the police and the ambulance. And it told me I agreed with 11% but showed a bar chart showing that basically everyone agreed with me. It was confusing.
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 to illustrate their point - only it backfired anyway.
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 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 a rule or law can’t be defined to perfection without the slightest ambiguity then we should just have anarchy? I’m sorry for the bluntness but that’s asinine.
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 to illustrate their point - only it backfired anyway.
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 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 a rule or law can’t be defined to perfection without the slightest ambiguity then we should just have anarchy? I’m sorry for the bluntness but that’s asinine.