Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Worst Roommate Ever

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 290 posts

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#131

Post by microcolonel »

Decade wrote: post #82
maaaats wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I lived in mortal fear of the day one of them realised that they could just stop paying me rent, and there's nothing I can do about it whatsoever That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. And giving people housing is important, that's why the laws often favor the person renting, not the owner. The laws is a risk you have to take if you want to rent out your place. Price it in…

In San Francisco, it is illegal to for a master tenant to rent a room for more than the subtenant’s proportionate share of the space. You can charge more, but hell will descend upon you once the subtenant figures it out.

How does that even work? By floor area?

That's not how pricing works!

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#132

Post by ghaff »

mnw21cam wrote: post #117
stevenwoo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize the simple matter of not having an address on checks was such a red flag.

I have never seen an address on a cheque. Sounds like a really bad idea to me (privacy etc). Since when was that a thing, and what banks should I be avoiding?

In the US, printed checks don't need to be issued by banks and it's pretty much up to the person you're giving the check to whether they think it's an acceptable check or not. But, yes, to the degree checks are still used, the norm is to have an address printed on them. At least historically, a lot of stores wouldn't accept so-called blank checks without any personalization (understanding that's not quite the same thing as not having an address.)

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#133

Post by Momquist »

Joe-Z wrote: post #77
Momquist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gut reactions to psychopaths tend to be the opposite: they are charming, and charismatic. Theres's a very good chance that you will like them, from the first impression. That's one of the traits/signs of a psychopath. That's why you shouldn't trust your gut, at least not in this case. And the experiences of the victims in the article reinforce this point, at least in the first encounters: a courtly gentleman , he was…

>...a courtly gentleman, he was very respectful. Actually that's the thing that threw me off. I mean why would a successful, well-adjusted "gentleman" even be in a situation where the best option for him is to live in a shared apartment with a woman considerably younger than him? Sure he gave her a reason, but well, he has to come up with _something_ doesn't he? To me it seems much more likely that she agreed to him…

> I mean why would a successful, well-adjusted "gentleman" even be in a situation where the best option for him is to live in a shared apartment with a woman considerably younger than him? Sure he gave her a reason, but well, he has to come up with _something_ doesn't he?

But isn't this your logic/rational mind kicking in? I think you're making my point that trusting gut feelings (a well-adjusted gentleman) isn't reliable, and taking some time to calmly and rationally assess the situation (the quick background check the victim's mother did for example) is a much better alternative.

You're right that being in a desperate need for a roommate, for financial reasons, may have been a major factor here. But again, psychopaths are manipulative and able to choose their victims and spot their weaknesses. Bachman may well have sensed this was a great opportunity, and pushed the right buttons (immediately writing a check).

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#134

Post by dalore »

siddharthdeswal wrote: post #36
throwaway_4321 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure this will be unpopular, but: I once had a psychopath like this turn up in my life. Like a lot of these stories, it escalated slowly, one creepy / inappropriate thing at a time. There really is a frog in hot water effect in play here. If you haven't experienced it, it might be hard to understand why someone let themselves be in that situation at all. What I don't understand, however, is why people don't deal…

Dude you seem to have a problem. Beating folks into one inch of their life looks to me a significant overreaction. I understand your frustration, I've wanted to behave similarly many times in life, but actually doing it is a different thing altogether.

I'm wondering who the psychopath really was in that story...

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#135

Post by dalore »

Chris2048 wrote: post #101
philliphaydon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never had problems like this. I had a policy with flat mates which was. If you put food in the fridge, expect me to eat it, if I put food in the fridge, I expect you to eat it, I’m not going to argue about fridge space or who bought what. It’s not worth the time and effort.

> or who bought what Why? Why aren't people entitled to the things they buy? It just rewards people with peculiar tastes or low budgets.

What if I store my stool sample in the fridge that I need to take to the doctor?

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#136

Post by colanderman »

zxcmx wrote: post #48
nwatson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the pointer to the book, quite interesting so far. The author talks of psychopathy as an "adaptation" and not a "brokenness" in an individual ... but the adaptation so far mentioned is only in the sense of "the relatively small number of psychopaths is adapted to prey on other humans". I suppose that having too many psychopaths would render human trust very frail and would make a society prone to failure (…

Not sure about psychopaths (I imagine they fit in there somewhere) but as a less extreme version the complainers and confronters and grudge holders of this world do those of us who are less confrontational some service at times. I tend to think of "social enforcement" as a sort of commons good. It often doesn't benefit the person doing it that much but overall it helps keep everything balanced. Someone cuts in line?…

I am one of those people. It comes from my mother being a union leader, my dad being a complainer with a short temper, and being unpopular in school, teaching me to not care what others think of me. It doesn't bother me one bit to stick my neck out at the workplace and (productively) call out BS, or to make some Comcast customer service representative's life hell until they rescind some BS charge on a friend's account. I wouldn't call it "assertiveness" - I don't consider myself very assertive - but more a very low tolerance for BS and "injustice".

This means that I've spent most of my adult life learning not to sweat the small stuff (especially since moving to a major city), but rather focus my energy where either it will actually benefit others, or against someone who is actively taking advantage of me in a harmful way. I have to consciously remind myself that to do otherwise - to confront every line-cutter and litter-dropper - will at best drain me of energy for fights that matter, and at worst, invite trouble I'm not able to handle.

Relevant to the article, I credit this same ability with having helped me escape two emotionally abusive, back-to-back, relationships (both made possible thanks to my otherwise lack of assertiveness in social areas).

I don't think I'd call myself a psychopath, though I share some traits (e.g. low - but not absent - empathy). If my parents hadn't instilled in me a strong sense of morality maybe I would be.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#137

Post by Chris2048 »

dalore wrote: post #135
Chris2048 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or who bought what Why? Why aren't people entitled to the things they buy? It just rewards people with peculiar tastes or low budgets.

What if I store my stool sample in the fridge that I need to take to the doctor?

Why in the fridge? It need to be kept fresh?

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#138

Post by jacobolus »

microcolonel wrote: post #128
maaaats wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. But then how do you kick them out? By doing something ! Which was my point. Saying "nothing whatsoever to do about it" is a lie by the OP. I'm not saying all the rules are sane. But it's better to protect the weak that need roof over their heads, than the persons renting out a house t…

> ...than the persons renting out a house they don't need. Is a camera rental company just "renting out cameras they don't need"? Maintaining rental properties is a livelihood, a bad faith tenant is just as abusive as a bad faith landlord. People buy properties on loans to rent them out, when a tenant refuses to pay the rent, the utilities and the loan payments fall to the landlord. The obvious effect of this is that…

If it destroyed someone's life to go without a camera then this would be a reasonable analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#139

Post by ben174 »

maaaats wrote: post #110
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

> It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. But then how do you kick them out? By doing something ! Which was my point. Saying "nothing whatsoever to do about it" is a lie by the OP. I'm not saying all the rules are sane. But it's better to protect the weak that need roof over their heads, than the persons renting out a house t…

> Owning multiple properties and renting them out isn't a right. Having a house to live in should be.

I’m not sure I’m reading this correctly. You believe it should be a human right to have a home to live in? Every person is just given a free home? Who would build all these homes in this utopia?

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#140

Post by jsjohnst »

dalore wrote: post #123
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

If someone dies and does not pay, and it still takes a year to kick them out, won't the body be severely decomposed then?

s/dies/does/

And it’ll make more sense to you.

Post reply on HN