Worst Roommate Ever • Hacker News Board

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#211

Post by antihero » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

maaaats wrote: post #80

whack wrote: post #53

The kind of tenancy laws I read in articles like these, sound absolutely idiotic. If you let someone into your home, and they aren't on the lease, you should be able to kick them out anytime they overstay their welcome. If you do sign a lease with someone, and they haven't paid their rent, you should be able to throw their stuff out and change the locks as soon as their security deposit has run itself out. As a forme…

> 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 the UK renters only have rights if the landlord doesn't live there. If they are a "lodger" they basically have fuck all rights and can be kicked out immediately.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#212

Post by ghaff » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

Itaxpica wrote: post #208

ghaff wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird story. One strongly suspects that there must be more to it. As reported, to not even be indicted (which usually has a low bar) for stabbing someone to death in full view of numerous witnesses seems like a pretty abnormal outcome.

From the article it sounds like it happened in the course of a fight that the other guy started; the grand jury may have just viewed it as self-defense.

Maybe? Self-defense doesn't usually extend to "He shoved me while in a public space with other people around so I killed him." One has to believe that there were indeed extenuating circumstances but it's not really clear from the article what they were.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#213

Post by mieseratte » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

kelukelugames wrote: post #22

mtgex wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. I think our "gut" is infinitely biased. No one is immune. If you believe you do not have racial, ethnic, and gender biases you are wrong. And, if you read the article, everyone's gut reaction was that this man was an unassuming, down to earth, great guy, and they got along with him very well at first. The article makes clear that their gut reaction failed them.

I'm just going to post this quote about going with your gut from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "But one example of the unconscious bias that still exists was a Title VII suit brought in the late 70s, and the plaintiffs were women who had not succeeded in getting middle management jobs at AT&T. They did very, very well on all the standard criteria, but they flunked disproportionately at the last stage, and what was that last s…

Sure, using your gut instinct in things like hiring, things where we want and need to be as objective as possible, is probably a recipe for bias and that's bad. Interviewing for roommates is something different, more intimate. You're going to be sharing space with this person and letting your gut reject someone is fine. If you're not comfortable having a female rommate, fine. If you're not comfortable with someone, for whatever reason, there is nothing morally or legally[0] wrong in rejecting them.

[0] - YMMV

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#214

Post by cdancette » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

banned1 wrote: post #205

cdancette wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you mention this, because it is an actual right in France. People have a right to housing. That's why the government provides (or should provide more) shelter to homeless people. Do you believe that people do not have the right to have a shelter where to live, but only those who are rich enough to afford it ?

Who would provide such right?

The state

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#215

Post by TheMagicHorsey » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #169

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…

Realistically, there's nothing I can do about it because the eviction process is so long and time consuming, that by the time I finally evict the person, my lease would be over and I'd be moving out anyway. After having given my roommate free housing for many months of course. > "Giving people housing is important" I agree! So let's make the government financially liable for any missed rent payments, while the evicti…

Most people don't understand the second order effects you've described. The downside of so much renter-favorable protections is an increase in rent which prices out those very same renters.

The person whose comment you are replying to doesn't understand that. So then when the rental market gets too hot for working people, his next demand will be that the government force landlords to rent at a particular price.

So then landlords don't want to rent at that price, because they would take a loss, so they choose not to rent at all. So then the market for rental properties contracts.

Then the person asks that the state appropriate the properties and rent it out directly. So then people lose their property and have no incentive to invest in property in the jurisdiction, and future workers, not interested in living in government dormitories, choose another jurisdiction to go build their companies and careers.

Then this person, aged 60 at that time, will be sitting in their rundown neighborhood where all the young people have left to go to another jurisdiction, and will be muttering ... things used to be soooo good. What ever happened?

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#216

Post by tehwebguy » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #169

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…

Realistically, there's nothing I can do about it because the eviction process is so long and time consuming, that by the time I finally evict the person, my lease would be over and I'd be moving out anyway. After having given my roommate free housing for many months of course. > "Giving people housing is important" I agree! So let's make the government financially liable for any missed rent payments, while the evicti…

It has never been easier to check background, credit, rental history. Something like $30 per applicant and you can require they pay the fee.

It’s not perfect but being blacklisted as an evicted deadbeat (or being someone who won’t provide verifiable rental history / references) is a pretty big disincentive to go nuclear on your rental. Sure some people are just leeches like the subject of this story but I wouldn’t imagine that’s anything but an edge case.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#217

Post by closeparen » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

megablast wrote: post #67

whack wrote: post #53

The kind of tenancy laws I read in articles like these, sound absolutely idiotic. If you let someone into your home, and they aren't on the lease, you should be able to kick them out anytime they overstay their welcome. If you do sign a lease with someone, and they haven't paid their rent, you should be able to throw their stuff out and change the locks as soon as their security deposit has run itself out. As a forme…

Are you serious? So no tenants rights at all? Just because of an incredibly rare and unique situation?

The rights you have to continue a close personal relationship with someone by living with them should be distinct from the rights you have over a large-scale landlord to live in one of its investments. Cohabitation is a level of intimacy that it’s completely inappropriate for the state to prevent you from withdrawing.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#218

Post by daxelrod » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

mnw21cam wrote: post #141

ghaff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Holy cow! (about multiple things you just wrote).

It's even worse.

In the US, mechanically speaking, you only really need an account number and routing number to pull money from someone else's account. (Legally, you also need their permission.) These two numbers are printed on the check.

In fact, some merchants will accept a check at point of sale, and then use those numbers to initiate an ACH electronic transfer, then void the check instead of cashing it.

Checks really are nothing more than IOU notes for the writer's bank to honor.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#219

Post by aje403 » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

I housed a guy temporarily who was eerily similar to this. Reading this article rings too many bells. Very good looking. Mysterious past, including pretending to have a law degree (he had taken a bunch of law classes and rambled as if he were an expert). He was being chased by the Columbians and the Jews with a truly absurd story behind it. Used encrypted phone apps. Stalking his ex girlfriend at an expensive nightclub once a week. I could go on. Things got a little old after awhile but we had quite a few fun adventures together and he wasn't (at least then) violent. I would be highly unsurprised if he eventually turns violent when he gets older and he questions his own delusions of grandeur.

Moral of the story: be very careful of who you let into your home and personal life. It sounds easy until you find out the hard way for yourself. Trust your instinct if it's good, if not, always make sure close friends and family are aware of any strangers you're bringing into your life, even if they seem innocuous at first.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#220

Post by aje403 » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

nwatson wrote: post #21

danielvf wrote: post #12

The author of ZeroMQ wrote a book on recognizing people like this, and more importantly how to get yourself out of prison they’ve put you in. The action plans have helped me. The lucky ones in the NYmag article here did many of the things he recommends. Free PDF here, look for the hard to find “read” button. https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/psychopathcode/details

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 (…

This is a really horrible way to put things -"psychopaths are society's ultimate catastrophic re-insurance, the last resort". It's indulging itself in grandiosity and dumbing down a richer picture than that with more gray area.

Referring to someone as a psychopath is quite similar to people calling you a hacker because you majored in computer science then asking you to fix their computer.

Outside of the dramatics, it is true that leaders tend to exhibit typical psychopathic qualities. Things like diminished empathy, cutthroat competitivity, predatorial cleverness, selfish rationality at the cost of emotion, and the ability to project the right mask at the right time are usually needed in high business and politics. At the same time, you can't lump Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates into a group with the high school shooter kids.

It's not really an adaptation considering humans evolved into empathy - psychopathy, physiologically, refers to part of the brain being underdeveloped leading to these characteristics being formed as an individual progresses through life. Of course, it seems like individuals who go through traumatic events or extended drug use often develop at least a subset of these behaviors separately. I'm not a psychologist so I'll stop myself. Either way, it is a much broader picture than you're painting - the humans and the "evolved" psychopaths.