It's an interesting set of questions, and one that I'm not sure I answered properly.
For example I would say that driving a police car or an ambulance into the park does break the "No Vehicles in the Park" rule, but it appears that quite a lot of people don't agree with that.
But it's a vehicle, and it's in the park. It's in the park for a good reason, one well worth breaking rules over and one which could also be applied to maintenance vehicles which actually "live in" the park.
A bicycle is a vehicle too, and you should not ride bicycles in the park if there's a sign saying "No vehicles". People break this all the time, and it's a wonder no-one gets hurt.
I'm always intrigued by the German FE-Schrift ("fälschungserschwerende Schrift", "more-difficult-to-forge font") chooses shapes for characters that makes it hard for them to be turned into one another (like a 3 into an 8 or so):
As a youth in the DOS era, I was always enamored of fonts like OCR-A, there is some overlap between the problems of "make it easy to distinguish" and "make it hard to maliciously corrupt", although I can imagine some cases where they might be in conflict, especially if adding ink is asymmetrically easier than removing or covering it.
What I have always wondered about with FE-Schrift: they painstakingly made all glyphs distinguishable, but completely f'ed it up with V and Y: the "stalk" of the Y is vertical and so short that they're very easy to confuse. They could have made the "stalk" slanted, or even curved like in lowercase "g", and most people would have still recognized it as a "Y"...
A slanted stalk might have made it too close to an X with a removed lower left arm. But a curved stalk does seem like it would have been an easy improvement
reply