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

Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 399 posts

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#271

Post by SatvikBeri »

AretNCarlsen wrote: post #261
edw519 wrote: post #147

I get angry when I realize I will never again be who I've always been before, someone who lived strong and free by the creed that people are essentially good, that if you think optimistically, trust others. Please don't let them steal this too. I'm really sorry for your bad experience, but remember: - You can still live strong and free. - People are still essentially good. - You can still think optimistically. - You…

> People are still essentially good. Experiment indicates that the majority (65%) are not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment I am sorry to be a downer, and I agree that it is nice to pretend that people are essentially good. Ignoring the Milgram results, however, leads us to forget why we have to maintain societies with complex crime deterrent schemes, and why we should not trust anonymous individuals w…

People react wildly differently in different circumstances. This has been proven over and over. The Milgram experiment was heavily designed to influence how people act. A twist in circumstances can easily get 100% of people to do the "right" thing. If you only look at extreme cases like this, you won't get an accurate idea of human behavior.

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people, in normal circumstances, are essentially good.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#272

Post by nhangen »

rkalla wrote: post #196
Shenglong wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very optimistic. While I don't agree that people are essentially good, I envy your ability to see the world that way.

I was sitting here mulling over why you wouldn't think that people are essentially good and it dawns on me that a lot of people are scared and likely have behaviors that suggest they aren't good (e.g. drive by someone with a flat tire in the rain because they are scared it's a robbery setup for passer-bys) I think if you just look at your day to day interactions, most people are decent. I doubt many people are trying…

I'm with you, but I'm not so sure that it's not that people aren't good, but that the human race is inherently selfish, and many of the good ones are afraid of conflict.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#273

Post by speckledjim »

dmm wrote: post #167
speckledjim wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the whole premise is that you're traveling. Going to unknown territories. If I'm going traveling, I'm sure as hell in "untrusting" mode since I don't have a clue what the locals are like. There's strangers as in "local resident I see each day but don't know", and there's strangers as in "I've just traveled to a completely different country and have no clue who this person is" Wanting to trust everyone and b…

> a nice hippy dream. Bullshit. Live in fear of strangers your whole life or trust the basic humanity of strangers. Either way you're still going to die of heart disease like the rest of us. Why don't you live in constant fear of that? Stranger danger is a result of a fear-mongering media. Are you seriously worried about serial killers? Do you know how few of them there are and how freaking many people there are in t…

I don't live in fear. But I'm not going to go stay with random people thankyou. They might be in a cult for a start.

I'll take my hotel room thankyou.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#274

Post by nhangen »

Why would you ever rent your place, important valuables inside the property, without being home?

I can understand leaving the place empty of valuables and renting it remotely, but to rent your primary residence while you are away is incredibly foolish. I just don't get it.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#275

Post by anonymous246 »

inmygarage wrote: post #223

I wouldn't be surprised if this was organized and executed by an AirBnB competitor. It is just too malicious and meticulously done to constitute a random crime (do I watch too many crime shows? maybe.) AirBnB just closed a gigantic $100m round and they are doing phenomenally well, and here comes someone who makes "everyone's worst fears" about lending out their apartment to a stranger come true.

Interesting. I can't see the upvotes but your comment didn't go gray on my downvote. I guess the YC/Airbnb/"laws don't apply on the Internet" fanboys are out in force just like I expected.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#276

Post by shoota »

elliottcarlson wrote: post #221
eric-hu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally for (soft) drug decriminalization, too, but I don't have much experience with meth heads :) Would someone upped on meth be able to conduct himself well via email, sending polite thank-you's?

Yes - my experience with meth heads is that they can be perfectly normal in their interactions, but once high on meth they can be aggressive, obsessive compulsive and destructive. Granted, this can't only be blamed on meth (or drugs in general) - the person was obviously sober at some point during this trip - or at least sober enough to know what they were doing. This all seems like a planned out event to have fun wi…

I have seen a Meth head steal something from someone, and then politely offer to help them look for what they just stole from them.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#277

Post by sequoia »

lutorm wrote: post #226
DrStalker wrote: post #97

Does AirBnB offer any help with insurance? I know my home & contents insurance wouldn't cover any of this: I'd need to get (expensive) commerical insurance or some sort, and I'm guessing most AirBnB hosts don't have that. The idea of renting out my place with no recourse to insurance if it is destroyed is far too insane to contemplate for me.

Given the exposure, I would expect AirBnB to have liability insurance up the wazoo. It seems likely they would lose a lawsuit in this case, and even with just partial liability it could be very expensive.

Why would they lose a lawsuit if one were brought in this case? I haven't read it but I'd wager their TOS gives them the right to your first born child (hmm... I'm trying to say it probably disclaims any possible liability in the broadest possible terms, bad analogy perhaps). Then again, whether that holds in court is something we couldn't know until after a case.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#278

Post by tjic »

robjohnson wrote: post #260
sylvinus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for taking care of it, also good to know they got a suspect. What can you say on the 24/7 "urgent" line, which sounds like an important feature even for cases less dramatic than this one?

This seems to be the crux of the issue right here. When I heard the airbnb business model, this type of situation was the first thing that came to my mind. Airbnb absolutely does provide an incredible service, but these types of issues need to be solved. A 24/7 line should be step 1.

> When I heard the airbnb business model, this type of situation was the first thing that came to my mind

Same here. Great model, glad it works for some people, but the only price I'd take to rent out my house - with my personal items in it - is the price of replacing my house and personal items.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#279

Post by AretNCarlsen »

SatvikBeri wrote: post #271
AretNCarlsen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are still essentially good. Experiment indicates that the majority (65%) are not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment I am sorry to be a downer, and I agree that it is nice to pretend that people are essentially good. Ignoring the Milgram results, however, leads us to forget why we have to maintain societies with complex crime deterrent schemes, and why we should not trust anonymous individuals w…

People react wildly differently in different circumstances. This has been proven over and over. The Milgram experiment was heavily designed to influence how people act. A twist in circumstances can easily get 100% of people to do the "right" thing. If you only look at extreme cases like this, you won't get an accurate idea of human behavior. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people, in normal circums…

Certainly, you can get nearly 100% of people to do the right thing most of the time. That is what judicial deterrents accomplish. Those don't work if people are anonymous, however.

The Milgram experiment was not intended to be "extreme". They expected less than 3% of participants to actually torture their (fake) victim to death. The U.S. group was to act as a control, such that they could proceed to compare results in Germany, for instance, where the Holocaust had so recently occurred. Following the unexpected American results, Milgram simply did not bother to perform the actual intended experiment in Germany.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#280

Post by inmygarage »

anonymous246 wrote: post #275
inmygarage wrote: post #223

I wouldn't be surprised if this was organized and executed by an AirBnB competitor. It is just too malicious and meticulously done to constitute a random crime (do I watch too many crime shows? maybe.) AirBnB just closed a gigantic $100m round and they are doing phenomenally well, and here comes someone who makes "everyone's worst fears" about lending out their apartment to a stranger come true.

Interesting. I can't see the upvotes but your comment didn't go gray on my downvote. I guess the YC/Airbnb/"laws don't apply on the Internet" fanboys are out in force just like I expected.

What do you mean "laws don't apply on the internet". Someone very clearly broke the law here and should be caught and punished accordingly. That's not the argument - it's that a lot of companies can and will play dirty if they have to. Don't you remember the facebook/google PR scandal from a few months ago?

Background: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/12/facebook-bu...

Post reply on HN