In the UK I've met many interesting people both while hitchhiking myself, and while picking up hitchers. It is a practice that seems to have almost entirely disappeared here, not because it's illegal, but I guess because most people now have cars and some "stranger danger" worries.
As for "how": legislature passes a law against it like any other traffic law. Similar to jaywalking or prostitution (soliciting sex on the side of the road).
As for "how": legislature passes a law against it like any other traffic law. Similar to jaywalking
Only from the sequel on ("Rambo: First Blood Part II") "Rambo" is part of the film title, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rambo_(franchise)...
It's certainly a perspective of many, but many others think it's wrong, that children should run freely (there's a whole movement around that), etc.
> please please also don’t forget that people are dangerous
IME from a life spent in cities has taught me that people - strangers, unhoused people, etc. - are great. Most will be happy to to help, have a pleasant conversation, etc. (Read Jane Jacobs who, iirc, examines it in detail.) Humans are social creatures - we don't live alone, we're made to socialize and live in groups.
You need to be a social creature too and read people a little. Obviously some people aren't in a mood to interact; don't be rude or an idiot (they'll probably ignore you). And there's risk to everything - you can die in an accident but still travel by car; you can catch diseases but you still leave your home.
Really, the exception I think I see at a higher rate is apparently wealthy people. Maybe they aren't accustomed to the need to help each other, but there seems to be a culture of anger toward those who might need some help today. Why don't they just support themselves like I do?
My life has experience has taught me by and large people are pretty cool too. It's also taught me that the cool ones and the dangerous ones look exactly the same. Bad guys don't have horns, wear masks carrying large dollar sign bags or look like sihloutted trench coats lurking in a alley. So you gotta ask yourself if it's worth the risk.
I volunteer with emergency services and hope to open a clinic with my wife next year focusing on helping foster children with mental illness who tend to age out the system and fall through the cracks. The subject of mentally ill homeless people hits very close to home and I'm 100% on board with getting the homeless whatever care they need. That does not make the concept of untrained randos inviting mentally ill homeless people into their homes any less of a ridicously bad idea.
> I volunteer with emergency services and hope to open a clinic with my wife next year focusing on helping foster children with mental illness who tend to age out the system and fall through the cracks.
That's fantastic, whatever our debate about the details. Thank you.
> you gotta ask yourself if it's worth the risk.
There's always risk in life, as I said above. The level of risk is the key - the likelihood and the amount of harm - and that's debatable.
For kids, by far the most child abuse (as I'm sure you know) is by family and people the family knows. Staying home may be less safe. I just don't see the risks as worse than car accidents and other dangers.
Also, I don't know that I agree "there are predators everywhere", except as a sort of logical truth - predators aren't limited by geography. There are rabid dogs everywhere too. I doubt predators - which, come to think of it, is undefined and sounds like a bogeyman sort of term - are limited by wealth.
But of course, everyone needs to think and act intelligently. You don't let your kid go down the street where the prostitutes or drug dealers hang out.
> the cool ones and the dangerous ones look exactly the same
That's not my experience, but of course nobody can know for sure - that goes for family and coworkers too. Coincidentally, I ended up in coversations today with three apparently unhoused people today. The idea that these people are dangerous somehow is just not plausible. After the third conversation, I made an inside joke I have with the person next to me 'homeless people are so dangerous!'. We both rolled our eyes.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offende...
> https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offende...
Lets say M is "being murdered" and A is "stranger in the house", "not A" is "person known to the victim in the house".
The numbers you're quoting say that P(not A | M) is large, implying that P(A | M) is small.
However, to make a decision on whether to let someone in, I care about P(M | A).
You need to exercise that critical thinking more. You just heard someone say "the murders are known to the victim" and you instantly dropped your common sense.
All you're saying is you don't like my model (presumably because you'd like more inputs to the estimation?). Ok. You might not like my model, but at my comment on conditional probabilities was correct. The person that I was responding to wasn't that.
That doesn't sound very sane.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46384274
One thing that spending time talking to people online has taught me is how often what people say is just mindlessly repeating something they heard somewhere.
It's also fantastic how I find your response more persuasive than mine, while using fewer words. Well done.
Besides, "Bayes law" is not on your side on this one, it's well-known that "regular people" are over-represented in homicide, and "autistic people" or even "schizophrenic people" are under-represented and are mostly harmless
It is?
You’re still alive, thus you still have the chance to live a more selfless life you feel proud of.
> It's amazing these people did not worry about the extra expense and inconvenience of taking care of another person
Seems to me they did worry, but decided to do it anyway.
> with children of their own to take care of.
The children came later, and Ronnie helped to take care of them.
A large percentage of the homeless have autism [1]. And that really sucks. If these people don't have support, their lives can turn miserable fast. And unfortunately it's just way too easy for these people to end up in abusive situations.
It's a lot of work to care for people with autism (moderate to severe). There is no standard for what they need, their capabilities can be all over the board. Some of them are capable like ronny in this story and they can hold down jobs. But others need 24/7 caregiving in order to survive. Unfortunately I don't think those with severe autism survive for long when they become homeless.
I hope this story at very least gets people to view the homeless a little differently. They aren't all there because of vices or failure. A large percentage are there because society does not care for those with mental disabilities. It was good on this story to highlight that Ron had problems with gambling. Autism does, in fact, make an individual more prone to various addictions.
My point in writing this, please have some humanity about the homeless. I get that they can be inconvenient. They are people and they aren't necessarily bad people due to their circumstances.
> please have some humanity about the homeless
In the US, the homeless population exploded, in the 1980s, when they closed down all the mental institutions. Before that, there was a far less pervasive homeless population in urban areas.
Being "on the spectrum," myself (but highly functional), I can attest to how easy it is for an autistic person's life to go sideways. Many autistic folks have very specialized and advanced skills, which can sometimes be applicable to making a living (like programming, or visual design).
However, we're "different," which often leads to being shunned/traumatized by neurotypicals. I got used to folks eventually walking away from relationships, for no discernible reason. Used to really bother me, until I figured it out. Now, I just take it in stride, and appreciate whatever time I get to spend with folks. If anyone has seen The Accountant (the first one), there's a scene, near the end, where Ben Affleck's character is considering putting the moves on Anna Kendrick's character, but remembers his father, admonishing him that people will always end up being frightened of "the difference," and he sneaks out, instead. That scene almost brought me to tears, I could relate so well.
For some folks, it's much worse. They can be relentlessly bullied, abused, locked up, or shunned, which leaves psychological scars that manifest as antisocial behavior, so they are never given a chance to show what they can do.
Happy Christmas to you and everyone else here as well :)
Fuck people.
I grew up at a time when a home appliance was an acceptable gift for the woman in charge.
I heard women complaining progressively more through time, and now it is not an acceptable gift.
This is also how I grew up (my parents were a little bit more on the conservative side). This together with the fact that I am not deeply knowledgable in the US-American common practices also made it hard for me to understand why the mother was angry about this gift, in particular considering that she did complain about the old one.
But when I mentioned it over coffee at work most of my female colleagues were aghast. I defended myself saying something like "It's the 21st century, we are way past the point that I can't gift a pan to my wife" and they said "Well that might be at YOUR home!", and I learned a thing.
Not everyone will care, but this is a stereotypical type of present likely to trigger anger and resentment in the recipient for a reason.
There’s whole genres of cleanup games on steam which are extremely popular, profitable, and well reviewed.
One of my favorite vectrex games is a Pac-Man clone where you play as a vacuum.
If I never wash my actual driveway, the same is not true. Therefore I will need to wash it at times when it's unpleasant or I don't want to, and it will take longer than powerwashing a driveway in Powerwash simulator.
Perhaps more importantly, it’s not his full time job.
My wife and I, by the way, are giving each other a joint New Year gift of a fancy robot vacuum cleaner: it's the best sort of gift, useful, elegant, and something that one would be reluctant to spend the money on otherwise.
The reaction is a result of the gift implying that the work is the responsibility of the individual recipient.
It's not a universal reaction, but common enough that it is a frequent trope in movies and TV.
You are worthy of being loved even if people close to you aren't able to express it to you.
Grok: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_26f4c367-77ed-4b6e-be55-83...
Claude: https://claude.ai/share/dca96b18-d583-4e14-b805-725d2e060761
Interestingly ChatGPT won't let me share a chat link for the same input text due to not passing a moderation filter, but you can plug that same gauche prompt into chat.com for yourself. Couldn't find the share button in Gemini.
Especially on topics for which there is little data or few sources.
Ask it a really specialized question - the kind of domain-specialized topic not openly and extensively published. Something post-doctoral research equivalent.
It will happily invent all the details. Then if you ask to confirm if those things actually exist, it will apologize and say they do not.
To be blunt, LLMs only seem intelligent because they were trained on moderate intelligence publications and people mainly ask low intelligence questions.
I'd like to encourage you to resist the "what I did wrong" framing, because it's definitely not a given that you did anything wrong in any given circumstance. Sometimes neurotypical people are just completely unreasonable, and sometimes they will try to manipulate you (and each other).
The strange part to me is that neurodivergence is commonly explained in terms of inability to see things from another point of view (see the classical "what will X person say is in the box?" test). But supposedly neurotypical people demonstrate what seems to me like a stunning lack of empathy (or more generally, ability to comprehend other worldviews) all the time. Especially when politics is involved.
Politics is about power fights: whose argument will convince the mass that in this case violence (laws -> state authority) is appropriate or not appropriate.
So even if the other person is able to comprehend other worldviews (which I would claim is actually often, though not always, the case), there exist very strong incentives to ignore these other world views in your actions when politics is involved.
IME religion facilities this phenomenon. In-group members (esp men) get forgiveness and freedom from consequences (perhaps conditioned on saying magic words). Whilst out-groups get "forgiveness" with extra consequences.
As far as the framing, it's helped me realize that actually, hey, sometimes it is their fault and they are being unreasonable and I actually didn't do anything wrong, they just don't like me. I mean yeah, that's also a thing.
Plus your questions will contain your mistakes, and what you take from any answers would reinforce your misunderstandings rather than correct them.
It's hard to suggest better learning means via the HN medium.
I learnt a lot when I carefully gave attention to a friend I deeply trusted, training my intuition based on their interactions, plus they trusted me enough to sometimes attempt to explain their intuitive reactions.
Rationally analysing human interactions via writing and psychology will screw up your leaning.
Children just learn by doing and are only guided in a gross sense.
If you want to understand people, one must learn like a child does.
These my personal beliefs that I apply to myself. Trying to find you some scientific papers would be counterproductive and destroy the point I am making.
Then there are those of us for whom social situations are a 3-billion-line case/esac statement.
case situation in
shesmiledandlaughedafterthejoke)
shelikedthejoke()
;;
shesmiledandlaughedafterthejokebutlookedsideways)
shesboredanddidntlikethejoke()
;;
thejokewasfunnyoncesoitmustbefunnyeverytimeeven200times)
crashandburn()
;;
etc)
;;
esac
Somehow, I managed to get married. My wife helped me understand what I was missing - it was like gaining eyesight after never having it or even understanding eyesight was a thing people had.
Yes, many people lack empathy. That is no excuse for you (or me!) to learn and use empathy.
I didn’t get that at all from what they said tbh
Then these neurotypicals should stop their hypocrisis of preaching tolerance and considering themselves to be tolerant.
You shouldn't be condemned, but as I wrote, people should stop the hypocrisy and virtue signalling of pretending to be so insanely tolerant if they have such a primal response.
If someone is standing near the train tracks and sees a train approaching a stalled car, they should be praised for choosing to run over and help even if their initial instinct is to get as far away as possible.
It's difficult and it's fine to struggle with it.
I can relate this very much, and I am "just" 100% blind. I believe what we are talking about is not "neurotypicals" vs "non-neurotypicals", it is really the way society treats anyone with a pertceived disability. We are, even though society tries to keep the mask on, outcasts, and we are regularily enough treated like that we learn on a deep level that we are just not part of the rest of society. Sure, there is a "spectrum" of how good a person with a disability might cope, but at the end of the day, if I throw myself into the masses and have random interactions, I always learn the same lesson: random strangers will keep treating me in a very uncomfortable way. Sure, many people try their best. Some even come across as creepy by trying so hard. But the statistics never changes. I will never feel like a "normal" person, they will make sure I never will.
It's harrowing how people prefer donating resources over exerting mental effort to bridge simple psychological boundaries in understanding the different needs of others, especially for disabilities (which nobody chooses to have). I often wonder if the root of this is the individual fear it could happen to us. By exercising empathy, we are reminded that ourselves and our families are vulnerable to disability at any time--from birth to life events this second (injury, illness, luck), existence is vulnerability.
Our intrinsic fears combined with societies lacking safety nets and breathing space has created a positive feedback loop for hyper-individualistic living. Our own bubbles. I try to do the opposite, but it's not easy.
Saying "make sure" suggests intent. I would hope the discomfort causing reactions are an unintentional side effect of ignorance. Because if so then there's hope that even the masses can learn to be more considerate and inclusive.
Ultimately, nearly all of us will develop some physical or mental impairment due to accidents or aging.
I'm going to tangent a bit here but so far in my life, after observing lots of people discussing things related to this, every single person feels this way.
Every person thinks they're atypical. That they're experiencing things other people don't. That they're different in some way to "everyone else".
Exactly what this means is up to the reader, but it sure implies some interesting ideas here.
* that people whose organs are harvested should receive some compensation in the way that other participants in the transaction do: https://web.archive.org/web/20240417004658/https://news.ycom...
After I complained enough people flagged the replies calling me a Nazi but before that they were the top ranked responses.
* I suggested that the franchise should be restricted and the majority of reactions were not considered and simply emotional outbursts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291336
This is the nature of being different: most people don’t bother with the rider; the elephant suffices.
This assertion seemed to go unrecognized in the other replies; I really think it earns a moment of reflection.
The corollary of not knowing when [non-neurotypicals are] offending people, is that they also don't know when they're receiving tolerance
... and for good reason, because it turns out that people with no support network (which most mentally ill people and a lot of prisoners are) are perfect victims for all kinds of abuse - both from other inmates and from "wardens". They didn't end up in an asylum randomly, they ended up in there because their family didn't want or could not provide care for them.
And it's not just mental "health" institutions or prisons... all forms of "care" breed abuse. The Catholic Church for example is still reeling from constant discoveries of abused children in orphanages. Elder care institutions, particularly severely understaffed, routinely have to deal with inmates being injured by anything from a lack of care (e.g. bed sores) over physical abuse to sexual abuse [1].
And to make it worse... private/family care without independent oversight is just as bad. A lot of homeschooled children are heavily abused, caregiver burnout and its fallout is also a nasty issue, and particularly in men with dementia, they can also be the abusers.
In the end, the root problem is that we as a society haven't yet figured out how to properly deal with the balance between care work, employment work and rest, and we also haven't figured out how to properly reward and audit care work.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/06/shock...
Abuse was/is a reason to improve controls over abuse and increase funding to improve conditions. It is not a good reason to abandon inpatient care wholesale. Imagine if we had made the same decision about hospitals or schools, both of which engaged in routine abuse in the early 20th century.
Yeah, it was supposed to be replaced with a kinder/gentler system, but that never came. They shut down the support system completely with a "we'll figure out how to fix this later" and that never came.
I think the solution is pretty obvious, TBH. Pay people to take care of their family with disabilities. It's often a full time job to take care of someone with a severe disability. Some states do make allowances to pay out to family caregivers, but it's a convoluted system where you have to be employed by a private care agency which is ultimately reimbursed for the care. There's a pointless private business in the way just adding on admin fees.
But there desperately needs to be something in place for people without that support. Parents die/leave/are incarcerated and we really don't have any sort of system setup to handle that.
Maybe, but we do also need a way to deal with people whose problems can’t be managed in a family setting.
If a person is prone to violent meltdowns with little provocation, or can’t help but steal from their family to feed an addiction, family caregivers aren’t going to be enough.
no, it wasn't, it was SCOTUS decision O'Connor v. Donaldson
No.
I've also come to accept this about myself, but I had to stumble through a dark tunnel of feeling inadequate and feeling like an inhuman monster.
The typical list of traits that should not be used as a basis for discrimination is on a spectrum of how instinctual or fear-based it is, which I don't think have seen mentioned in training materials on unconscious bias.
Why on earth did we do this?
I look back at period pieces - films showcasing the 40s, 50s, etc., and it seems like mental institutions would be a wonderful way to house these folks and keep them fed and warm.
I know there were abuses, but we have cameras now. And that's surely better than leaving them on the streets to freeze to death.
I can't imagine it would cost that much, and it would clean up the streets of drugs and homelessness. And reduce the tax on emergency services responding to calls.
I feel so bad for what we as a society do to these people. When my city closed down the local homeless shelter in midtown, the people on Reddit - supposedly leftists - cheered. I was so sad. These are the same people that call me fascist all the time for being a fiscal moderate and saying we shouldn't build subway to the suburbs. Being humanitarian would cost 1/10,000th of that.
We balance many difficult and inherently conflicting goals, such as:
1) minimizing treatment, which is expensive and does have bad side effects
2) sufficiently good access to treatment where it’s economical for prevention
3) fear of being wrongly hospitalized (error, political motivation, etc.)
4) sufficient ability to lock other people up for frightening or violent behavior in public
It’s a tough problem, but I think the tradeoffs are managed near optimally, granting that the rights and interests of the mentally ill don’t matter at all to most public officials or voters.
Reagan's destruction of the mental health system was really awful. The system needed improvement and more accountability, but we need it.
I had an adult step-brother too ill with schizophrenia to be cared for at home (he began making violent threats and stealing things, up to and including my mom's car), but under the current threshold for being compelled to take his medication. My mom (his step-mom; an attorney) spent years trying to find ways to get him help, but he bounced in and out of being homeless and ended up being murdered at about age 60 in a halfway house. Just a stupid, tragic waste of a life and all of the resources mis-allocated.
Sadly, it's just another example of how the US is penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to social services.
I'm reading this comment as if you had written:
"The TV show Hogan's Heroes makes being a prisoner of war sound like a jolly good time."
Much has been written about this, but from what little I know, they were abusive, and didn't do the job well. And were abused to keep sane people in.
I've heard that the advent of better drugs was also a factor. Prior to those drugs, there was no alternative other than commitment to mental facilities. The drugs gave the promise of a more manageable life - either by the patient or by their family.
What did we replace them with? Prisons.
About 20 years ago I saw a documentary about the use of prisons as a means to get mental health care. It explored the history that led to mental institutions getting shut down, and how prisons are treating the mentally ill. As crazy as it sounds, the prisons are doing a better job - even the inmates agree. Quite a few inmates said that the biggest problem they had was that they would be released from prison and not get access to the care they were receiving (including medications).
It wasn't trying to paint a rosy picture - they actually said this is, in one sense, an abuse of the prison system and that there needs to be a better way to treat them - but the consensus was "Definitely should not revert to the prior mental institutions!"
>Why on earth did we do this?
Supreme Court decision, O'Connor v. Donaldson.
I'm pretty sure there would be far less homeless if there were a lot more homes around.
it was the 1970s, SCOTUS decision in O'Connor v. Donaldson, when the court said that the mentally ill who were not dangerous could not be held in institutions against their will. The 1960s had seen a series of scandals concerning callous treatment of inmates in institutions (for example, see Titticut Follies) and that created the climate for deinstitutionalization.
Homelessness in the US has also increased by 47% since 2018. [0: Page 2] I doubt homelessness or drug abuse has increased accordingly.
People make the mistake to think otherwise because its not the homelessness you often see.
[0]: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-...
[1]: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/five-key-facts-about-people-exp...
Indeed. Those homeless people without mental illness likely have more interest in not being seen, and more ability to avoid it.
> Homelessness in the US has also increased by 47% since 2018. [0: Page 2] I doubt homelessness or drug abuse has increased accordingly.
Not sure what the typo is in here. Surely homelessness has indeed increased in accordance with homelessness.
If have lived anywhere with a significant drug-addict (opioid or fentanyl) population through this time period, you’ve seen the increase; if you haven’t, you may be lucky for it.
I don't think this is a mistake so much as people do not care about the homelessness they don't see.
Ironically when you use the specific words for the homelessness they do care about (unsheltered or unhoused) you're accused of being woke or whatever.
I agree that we should be kind to individuals and that understanding an individual's problems can help with that. That said, this paper does not appear to provide convincing evidence that autism is a major contributor to homelessness.
The abstract says the same thing.
No.
No, it can't.
This is why it's so frustrating to hear people smugly say we just need to build more houses to solve the homeless crisis.
I expect they need it more (very broadly speaking; people have very different disabilities do different degrees), because it's harder to adapt and survive without it, and therefore more traumatizing and destabilizing.
There is plenty of evidence, and it's common sense, that having a stable shelter and all the things I listed above would greatly help anyone. Humans in every culture have sought shelter for all of history - it's absolutely fundamental to humanity (and other animals!). Depriving people of it results in unending trauma - not a state to begin getting your life together, harm from others and the environment, an inability to accumulate assets, and spending all your time trying to survive.
But it's only one piece of a very complex problem, it's akin to the magical thinking that is incredibly provision everywhere these days. "Just stop using seed oils and America will be healthy again!"
People who have personally dealt with this know the hard truth that simply providing food and shelter isn't enough to stop a significant portion of people ending up in the streets.
Right, who is disagreeing? Name someone. You've created a strawperson.
The knee-jerk anti-liberal responses (maybe that's not your motive, but it is for many) do enormous damage, by preventing good solutions from being implemented. The same thing happens with climate change, now vaccines, and other things. People are so focused on politics that they sacrifice lives and welfare of lots of people. There are good ideas from conservatives too - cutting off half the ideas is stupidity.
> People who have personally dealt with this know the hard truth that simply providing food and shelter isn't enough to stop a significant portion of people ending up in the streets.
In fact, the evidence and advocacy comes from people who have personally dealth with it, and providing housing does result in housing for a significant portion of people.
People need more than housing and that's where it becomes especially complex.
There are digital nomads too - they usually have money and live in rented places, but they have shelter.
I've worked for homeless shelters. But in my country we do have proper care for homeless and autitisc people automatically. No need for private families to care for them. Some still do though.
Some seemingly ordinary people have superhuman ability.
This give hope that humanity is still alive & not everyone is selfish like us.
> "That's the Catch 22 that loads of homeless people are in."
Breaking this systemic barrier would make life easier on a lot of people.
I really wish there would be more work to try to at least add some kind of alternative path here, given America's growing homeless population. Leaving things to the goodwill of family or friends seems to me like a dereliction of duty by the state.
Like for some deliveries you need to sign a receipt that will be legally binding, the post office would take the role of handling those.
I ended up finding some kinda sketchy-feeling services aimed at people RV living, and not much else. I wasn’t able to find an official solution to the problem of “I need to receive mail but have no address” (there may be one, but in solid 60-90 minutes of searching I didn’t find it, but did find a lot of people complaining about the problem)
But a lot of people might receive mail at a friends' address with permission. But, you still need to have a friend or family with a stable address who is willing to help.
There were ways around it, but it took finding a job at a really big company to make it work - they had dealt with it and had HR people that specialized in it. Once "on paper", I was pretty free to move around. I would not be surprised if their method was just putting in all zeros in the system or something until the permit number came back.
Less acceptable currently, other alternatives? Still seems famous and popular, just not quite as much as it used to be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geel#A_model_of_psychiatric_ca...
This was a lovely and touching story to read, I wish the best to the Rob and Dianne of the world!
This is a such a great outlook towards living life.
I often think that they’re held back in large part by people who say “we can’t” rather than building a solution
The problem isn’t that nobody wants things to get better, it’s that we disagree on how to get there. This has literally always been the case.
Of course things could be better. Life could be perfect. Lacking this solution you’re hand-waving, it’s useless drivel.
They’re the ones deviating from the usage the rest of the world uses. It would be identical to them pretending they’re the only ones driving on the correct side of the world. Nobody cares.
The funny thing is that if the wealth was actually shared fairly instead of politicaly, most of the recipient would fare a better life and we could do away with insane bureaucratic waste.
Another way would be to have less governement taxes and regulations that would allow for jobs to pay better and remove much of the need of the so-called safety nets. Of course, this way you would take power away from the mean girl bitches running those things so that can't happen.
From my experience, I can tell you that none of the people running those things have actually worked a single day in their life (as in, usefull work, that people would actually agree to pay for) but they can feel good about themselve because they are "helping".
It's hard to describe how corrupted the system is, church corruption seems a bit tame in comparison.
That’s the core issue so often ignored, we need systems to deal with people at their best and their worst.
But reading between the lines, having someone with a gambling habit isn't the best live in "maid" especially if they work full time as a bin man.
I would just suggest that looking to believe the worst in people will not make you stronger or more effective than others, it'll just make you lonely.
The internet can be corrosive, and its difficult to not let it tarnish. But, dear hacker news friend, I believe in you.
His family was hosting a stranger in their house for the night in 1921. Stranger said he has nowhere to go, so they allowed him to stay in the room with Leontovych himself.
The stranger ended up being a Russia undercover checkist who killed Leontovych and robbed his family. [0]
He has a really lovely welsh accent.
The other thing to do is they did this largely because its what they felt was the right thing to do.
One of my friends that lived nearby spotted me walking alone and invited me over. Another of her friends joined in. It was just the three of us, and it was much, much better than spending it alone.
At any university, look for the professors who act like benevolent citizens of the best of university ideals. They don't all do it in the same way, but they're some of the best.
I like to think of the university as a microcosm, and incubator, for how you'd like larger society to be.
It was greatly appreciated, and fun!
We are immigrants to United States, so our parents/sister is somewhere else.
They have always had us over for Thanksgiving and Christmas. They are the nicest people, and I'm grateful for it.
I like to think that their caring life did not really change, they were like that to begin with, they just missed a Ronni from it. : )
The case of Aaron Barley triggered this after a lovely and caring family took in a homeless boy into their own home leading to a terrible situation in which he murdered two of the family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLA4FpnHQ
There's no way I'd let random people into my home - you absolutely do not know what might happen, what their history is, their mental state, their criminal background. Be kind in other ways.
Its worth noting that the homeless person in this situation was in fact known to those who provided the home - and not as casually as the first para suggests.
> Rob studied the man's face and vaguely remembered him as Ronnie Lockwood, someone he would occasionally see at Sunday School as a boy and who he was told to be kind to as he was a "bit different".
> Ronnie was then almost 30 and had been without a home from the age of 15, living in and around Cardiff and moving from job to job - Rob would sometimes see him at a youth club he ran.
> The pair planned to let him stay until the day after Christmas, but when the day came, they couldn't bring themselves to cast Ronnie out and sought advice from the authorities.
You aren't entirely wrong, but this wasn't a random person and they did contact a homeless centre for advice.
Given that Ronnie had apparently already gone through some sort of system to end up at a "school for subnormal boys", it seems pretty clear that Ronnie lived a much better life through this family's actions and generosity.
The man doesn’t seem to be fully mentally well, but apparently he does his job diligently, has no inclination towards being violent, doesn’t do drugs, and keeps his problems mostly to himself.
That said, he has an extreme gambling addiction (he blows all his paychecks at casinos) and having seen his room once, it looked and smelled like a biohazard disaster.
He seems like a poor fellow that had some bad luck and now lives to just gamble the rest of his life away.
I give my uncle in law huge respect for taking this guy in, and also my aunt in law for also putting up with him living in their home. I don’t think my wife or I could have done the same.
The two of them are workaholics though and their home is just a space for them to sleep between work shifts at their restaurant. Which is why I don’t think they care too much about this man’s room’s condition.
> While they admitted the dynamic had its difficulties, including battling Ronnie's gambling addiction for 20 years, they couldn't imagine their lives without him.
However this means the two of them sometimes end up going to the casinos together. I don’t think these trips are helping this man’s gambling addiction.
A recovering family member told me the location of every bottle of booze in the family home where we were, their type, and how full they were. In the fridge, the back of the cupboard, and in the basement under the laundry rack. Even though he'd stopped drinking! So, I don't even like keeping alcohol in the house anymore, especially if it's not locked up.
peterspath•1mo ago
rajeshrajappan•1mo ago
imiric•1mo ago
> Take a look at yourself and then make a change
<3 MJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps
Merry Christmas!
leobg•1mo ago
cheema33•1mo ago