A man who became a hermit at 20 | Hacker News Reader

A man who became a hermit at 20

bbc.com

114 pointsheadalgorithm103 comments

> He tried to cause as little damage as possible, but the sheer number of break-ins - more than 1,000 over the years, caused a lot of anxiety for some of the cabin owners.

> Why had he turned his back on the world and gone off to live completely alone?

I would hardly define his way of living as turning his back from the world. He was still very much dependant on it and could obviously not live without it.

Yeah, I'd like to read an account of a 'true' hermit

Someone would call it invalid because a “true hermit” would not communicate with society.

True hermits are as rare as true Scotsmen.

It's fascinating how emotional people get over an individual pilfering a few supplies.

Tom Neale wrote "An Island to Oneself" in which he lived on a remote island multiple times in his life.

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

The government still checked up on him on occasion and he had to return to society due to injury, but he was very much a hermit otherwise.

Thanks!

You're welcome. I stumbled on it while browsing and it's a fascinating story.

Finding materials in nature (e.g. an untouched-by-humans forrest) vs in society (e.g. someones cabin) is not much of a difference if you are not a part of society. All living things need food and other stuff to sustain its life.

You go out, shoot a deer to survive, chop down a tree, and head home and you got some food and supplies. You go out, find a cabin, take some food and other stuff and head home and you've got some food and other supplies.

The difference is only significant if you follow the rules of society where we don't take each others stuff. But just like we don't bat an eye when we go out and take the life or supplies from an animal that is not part of society, why should a person or another creature that is not part of society think any different when they go into someones cabin and take food and supplies instead of finding the things in untouched nature? Why craft an axe from raw materials when you can just take the one that something else made that is laying right there in that log of wood?

>why should a person or another creature that is not part of society think any different when they go into someones cabin and take food and supplies instead of finding the things in untouched nature?

Because the creature or its family isn't going to be planning retribution, like I'd be doing if you broke into my property and stole my stuff.

Ah, the gatherer becomes the hunted.

It's not "gathering" if you're taking things that someone's deliberately prepared for their own future use.

So it's not gathering when we pick berries because the plant prepared them for spreading its seeds, not for us to eat and end up in our trash. Or we take the tree where the bird nested in, or the beetle, or the abe? Or when we take whatever else we take that something else prepared for another use?

It doesn't fit nicely in our societal view of "yours" and "mine", but whenever you take something, whatever it is, you are almost always taking it away from something else. Surely "thieving" is gathering. It's just a kind of gathering that society has decided is not okay, except in all the cases where society says it's okay, like taking the animals home, or the native humans, and so on.

> So it's not gathering when we pick berries because the plant prepared them for spreading its seeds

The plant isn't someone.

Insignificant detail.

> So it's not gathering when we pick berries because the plant prepared them for spreading its seeds, not for us to eat

Didn't many berries evolve so that animals would eat the berries and their seeds would end up in their feces? I'm not sure how to say that without it sounding like a cause and effect. Plants didn't _intend_ to evolve so that animals would eat the berries and carry their seeds away, it was more a symbiotic relationship.

Sure. Point being it’s all gathering. No difference when you gather berries or other peoples stuff against their will.

Stealing isn't gathering because we have a philosophical framework behind the concept of property. This is on top of the physical act.

If this guy got shot stealing from people, we wouldn't just call it killing; because we have a philosophical framework about justice and retribution. If you were consistent, you'd have to be okay that this guy would be treated like a fox who raids a henhouse; up to the personal whims of the aggrieved.

If I was gathering your stuff without permission, it’s stealing. If a bear or a person not part of society does it, it’s not stealing, it’s gathering. The myths of society are only that: collective beliefs inside society.

I see no problem with consistency:

From the hermits point of view, outside of the society with its philosophical framework, it is just gathering.

Society may call this theft. I may also jell at the crow stealing my unwatched food "you thief, give me back my food!". That is from my point of view, not the crows'.

To society the hermit still is human and we have morals and ethics that shall prevent us treating him as just a raiding wild animal / fox.

> Finding materials in nature (e.g. an untouched-by-humans forrest) vs in society (e.g. someones cabin) is not much of a difference if you are not a part of society. You go out, shoot a deer to survive, chop down a tree, and head home and you got some food and supplies. You go out, find a cabin, take some food and other stuff and head home and you've got some food and other supplies.

Or "You go out, eat the wrong food and die", like Christopher McCandless.

Thinking there's little or no difference is a gross underestimation of the difficulty of living in the wild.

McCandless would have survived if he had cabin food at hand, which means, there's a hell of a difference - a life and death type of difference.

In other words, everybody's a parasite on something. Lakota Sioux were buffalo parasites. Vegans are parasites of Daucus carota and Beta vulgaris among other species. Parasites of Homo sapiens are of course hated by that species. People are getting distracted by the whole theft thing. The guy's not awesome, and he's not terrible; he just did what he did, which was unusual. If you're picking up any "he's awesome" or "he's terrible" vibe, that's probably the result of an intentional editorial decision, to drive "engagement" via your admiration or outrage (or envy, which is both).

Absolutely true. This guy is not a hermit, sounds like an anti-social to me.

> He wanted to live out his life in that small place in the woods, to die there among the trees, leaving nothing behind.

Well, the people whose cabins he raided might not agree with the "leaving nothing behind" aspect. That would sound more convincing if he'd lived on wild berries and roots, fish from the streams, etc., taking no more than the environment could comfortably sustain.

He didn't become a hermit; he became an outlaw in the forest, and we shouldn't be surprised that the sheriff eventually came after him.

He probably smokes meth too, let's face it

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Yes, I was just joking around. Sorry about that. (Love your community here!)

I feel like the people who are complaining that he stole aren't really getting it.

Sure, he stole - and that's a bad thing because he took something that someone else worked hard to get. That's unfair.

On the other hand, there's no real way to "really" drop out of society. If you deal with money at all you have to pay taxes, live in a house. Even as a wood cutter in the Alaskan wilderness or some such you still have to own and pay for a truck. Being homeless is a hugely social thing as you have to live in a city and beg - and everyone hates you. Even as a pure hunter there's not enough natural wilderness to support that, and you can't exactly hunt on land you don't own.

So yeah, the people he stole from didn't agree to have their things taken. He (and I for that matter) didn't really agree to this whole society thing either.

The are plenty of options for dropping out of society. Siberia for example is millions of square kilometers of wilderness where you won't be bothered. It's not populated because the conditions for farming are bad: the soil is not suitable and the climate is not ideal - but it should be ok for a hunter-gatherer.

“Despite the bitter Maine winters, when temperatures can plummet to -20C, Knight says he never lit a fire, in case the smoke attracted attention.”

He dropped off the grid a few miles from thousands of cabins and survived exclusively on the contents of those cabins and the work of other people who filled those cabins with supplies. Had he truly survived alone in Wilderness instead of the equivalent of camping in the backyard and going inside the house for snacks he could have afforded to light a fire instead of pacing at 3AM to keep warm. He’s a parasite in the way he lived - not some noble outdoorsman. He’s a criminal.

I don’t think that being a hermit (avoiding any social interaction in ‘nature’) and being a criminal (acting against law) are mutually exclusive. And I think it’s very interesting to read about people who chose to become hermits, because I don’t understand the motivation and may learn something. I find it less interesting to discuss stolen batteries, because I understand that motivation and logic. You may choose to not understand things that you don’t agree with, being that kind of intellectual hermit is your proper, if sad, choice as a free human.

> I don’t think that being a hermit (avoiding any social interaction in ‘nature’) and being a criminal (acting against law) are mutually exclusive.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees with this. But this man was certainly more in the latter category than the former. He was just as dependent on civilization putting groceries in the supermarket as any of your suburban neighbors, except instead of paying for those groceries, he stole them. Sure, he also lived in nature and didn’t talk to people.

Ok sure but he's in jail now so you don't need to worry about people normalizing the behavior - so why not talk instead about the hermitude itself?

Is he still in jail? I thought he was caught ages ago and had a sentence less than a year?

I remember reading about his talk on living in prison...30 years in nature and then absolute filth.

Abiding the law is a privilege of the rich.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden (Thoreau)

> He’s a parasite

This guy’s cost to society is likely far lower than your average homeless person in a city like San Francisco, which spends something like $250,000,000 per year on the problem.

That said, I’m not saying putting homeless people in the woods to steal from nearby cabins is a scalable solution.

Spending on the homeless in SF was just recently increased to $600,000,000.

Had this man been born in, say, the 18th century, he could have become a garden hermit [0]. British aristocracy used to employ hermits to live on their estates, sometimes in hermitages or grottoes, as living garden ornaments but also counsel.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_hermit

Humans have a tendency to normalize the common. I think most people would adapt to solitude given long enough time. What made him end up in the woods at 20 is much more interesting than how he survived all the years. This was clearly his normalized state at 20.

Our senses are constantly bombarded, or maybe the right phrasing is “hijacked” with information. This will affect us in one way or another. This guy clearly choose information that has no intention to monetary profit on his decisions. But again, it’s not a calculated decision. It’s a product of his history.

I’m sure you can find happiness in solitude if you’re willing to take the cost of transitioning. Hell, you might even be able to self induce happiness in the void of information. Perhaps by talking to an imaginary friend.

So basically one break in every 10 days? I also find it crazy that he only came across one hiker in 27 years.

Also, in Alaska, you are supposed to leave your cabins unlocked in case people need to use them if they were stranded, etc. I doubt that this area was that remote, just food for thought.

If I had to guess, High-functioning autism[1] is the most likely mental disorder to lead to such a complete self-isolation. It's similar to Asperger's in a way that a person is usually of normal or higher than average intelligence, but it makes it even harder to empathize with others, which leads to extreme anxiety and complete inability to concentrate attention in adult life. In other words, such a person might not be able to socialize, study, or work despite being intelligent enough. This can unsurprisingly encourage some unusual choices in life.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism

Interesting that the Wikipedia article you linked, within the first paragraph, completely refutes your premise that HFA is a diagnosis applied to some individuals with above average intelligence, as well as social struggles.

I am not sure if we read the same article.

There are plenty of sources on the subject[1]:

> High functioning autism can be tough to diagnose in a very young child. There are a number of answers to that question. For example: Higher intelligence and language skills may have masked certain symptoms.

> The ability to do well in school, communicate effectively, and pass an IQ test with flying colors are all impressive — and may send parents and teachers down the wrong path when looking for reasons for a child's unusual issues or behavior.

[1] https://www.verywellhealth.com/high-functioning-autism-26030...

Don't shoot the messenger - you are the one who linked to an article that said:

"IQ of 70 or greater", and "HFA is not a recognized diagnosis"

> "IQ of 70 or greater"

It means that 70 is the lowest IQ of people with High-functioning autism, which makes the average much higher than that.

> and "HFA is not a recognized diagnosis"

So is Asperger's since 2013. Yet, there is a huge difference between people with high-functioning and low-functioning autism.

A person with low-functioning autism is not able to live independently at all.

> which makes the average much higher than that.

All it means is that this is the lowest IQ. The average might be 71, we cannot deduce that one way or the other from "IQ of 70 or greater".

> The average might be 71, we cannot deduce that one way or the other from "IQ of 70 or greater".

We cannot deduce that from this single quote alone, but there are far more detailed figures available[1]:

> 31% of children with ASD have an intellectual disability (intelligence quotient [IQ] <70), 25% are in the borderline range (IQ 71–85), and 44% have IQ scores in the average to above average range (i.e., IQ >85).

If only the autistic people with IQ of 70 or greater are considered "high-functioning", then 64% of them have IQ greater than 85.

In other words, 2/3 of people with High-functioning autism are of average or above average intelligence.

[1] https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-facts-and-figures

I appreciate that you elaborated on this!

Are you implying here that 44% is 2/3 or that an IQ of 71-85 is already average or above average intelligence? I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. It looks to me like you might at most be able to claim from these numbers that 44% is of average or above average intelligence.

A little bit off-topic: Doesn't this website belong to the group of people that demonize and vilify (and even anthropomorphize) autism?

Regarding diagnosis, Asperger was merged into the autism spectrum on the latest DSM. CID considers it to be a subgroup of autism.

HFA/Asperger can be said to be of higher average intelligence when compared to other autists, but that is not necessarily true when compared to neurotypicals.

However, "social struggle" is a common trait (and required for diagnosis AFAIK).

Just my thoughts on the discussion, from a fellow aspie.

Edit: by the way, krn's comment was spot on for me. I live by myself. I leave my house once every week to buy food and supplies. That's my only social contact. I dropped out of college and have only worked on my own software projects. Most people would consider my life very lonely but I quite like it :)

Much more likely to be schizoid personality disorder [0] IMHO, but I am not a psychologist.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

You can really strip down and simplify your life, spend time in silence and adjust your social interactions to suit your personality in many ways that are much better than this.

Sounds a lot like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Thomas_Knight. That’s the Wikipedia but the other accounts are maybe better reads. Still, not sure how you can be considered a hermit if you’re always out burglarizing. You’re more of a homeless burglar then in my opinion. Interesting stories though.

Homeless burglar hermit.

That is the same Christopher Knight that the article talks about.

Oh wow you’re right. Early morning confusion.

Thread from 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205993

2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13878801

He's aged remarkably well for 53.

I wonder if they would be diagnosed ADHD or on the autism spectrum if they had to function in society.

As for Christopher Knight, that might be the case: https://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?currentPage=1

> I followed his cue and looked over his shoulder while he stared over mine. We maintained this arrangement for most of the visit. Chris had recently been given a mental-health evaluation by Maine’s forensic service. The report mentioned a possible diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder, a form of autism often marked by exceptional intelligence but extreme sensitivity to motions, sounds, and light.

> Chris had just learned of Asperger’s while in jail, and he seemed unfazed by the diagnosis. "I don’t think I’ll be a spokesman for the Asperger’s telethon. Do they still do telethons? I hate Jerry Lewis." He said he was taking no medications. "But I don’t like people touching me," he added. "You’re not a hugger, are you?"

Never being bored isn't exactly a symptom of ADHD. Autism is more likely.

Please, a bit more diversity!

"Property is theft!"

-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

From the comments here, it seems people have not studied any philosophy and are treating these folks as selfish and thieving. Not so; as a living organism you need the minimum to feed, clothe and house yourself. This can be done in any manner (in ancient history Sages/Monks used to "beg" for food which was an accepted norm) and it simply is that some ways are looked down upon in today's society. Nothing more. For some more accounts on solitary living and solitude see;

1) Read up on Dick Proenneke - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke He lived alone for 30 years (from age 50 to 80) in the Alaskan Wilderness; built his cabin by hand and filmed his activities. Those documentaries and journals are a must watch/read.

2) Into Great Silence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Great_Silence A beautiful documentary on Carthusian monks in the French Alps.

But don't you think there is a big difference in people who lived in and off the wilderness, than someone who lived of by stealing (and causing fear)?

There are fundamental reasons why stealing is "looked down upon" in most social systems, not just our current one.

Having said that, I am prepared to accept that it's probably a good idea for society to give individuals a "way out" (live in solitude by choice). Otherwise, they might do some unfortunate things to themselves and/or others.

Maybe some areas of woodland should be sectioned off for people who want to live in a self-made cabin and sustain themselves. No developers or renting allowed, just solitary people and maybe communes.

This is the history of how US Western territories and States were created.

Breaking into people's property to take what they paid for is not ethical because it violates the golden rule of that underpins most mainstream religions: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you want to beg, fine, but this man would burglarize cabins on the lake in order to get food.

Potato Potato.... Depends how you look at the potato... Who gave you the right to take it from the ground and eat it ? Who gave you the ground ? Is it wrong if someone planted it ? Is it wrong if it grows there naturally. Is it wrong if you take one because your hungry, or is it wrong to take a ton in case you get hungry ? See it is a slippery slope of ownership... Are you owned ? But you still pay taxes to people that own you ?

Oh boy.

What makes you think this person would be opposed to people taking food he had stockpiled?

This man wasn't stockpiling any of his own food that he was producing himself. He was only stealing it from others. If he hadn't been able to steal, he'd have starved to death. A society consisting solely of people like him would collapse completely within days; you can't have only takers and no producers.

Ethics is relative and changes over time and varies by place, but is mostly irrelevant it sounds for him, which is good.

Begging for alms was not just a way to obtain food. In the Buddha's time, it was a method to keep one's ego in check and also to dissolve caste and class boundaries.

Right, there is always a rationalization.

Actually the Buddha was the son of the chief in a fair-sized republic who had every luxury available to him. He specifically left home and began to beg for his food for the social/political purposes I mentioned. It was a huge deal for a twice-born Kshatriya lord to eat food from a lower caste person, amounting to treason against his society. If you’re interested, please read about this before making up your mind.

It's a fascinating subject. And not easy to find good reading material about.

So thanks for the book recommendations !

I wonder: in most of these stories someone who loves solitude goes and lives his life.

But is there any reading material on how to learn to love solitude ? To learn to be in solitude ?

I am not aware of any one book which will teach you "How to love and live in Solitude":-) But the domain of Philosophy shows you the importance of "turning inward", "resting in oneself" and in general "living apart from the ceaseless and inane activity of the world".

The Ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Greek philosophical texts are the forerunners. The concept of "Renunciation"(Sanskrit: Sannyasa) under the Vedanta school in Hinduism is worth studying. One excellent and succinct text is the "Ashtavakra Gita" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtavakra_Gita). There are plenty more Hindu and Buddhist texts on the subject.

The Greek schools, in particular Stoicism; were popularized by the Romans. Here you have the usual suspects i.e. the works of Seneca, Cicero, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.

Finally, the Essays of Michel De Montaigne contain one "On Solitude" (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm#link2...) which has been published as a book under "Penguin Great Ideas" series; See https://www.amazon.com/Solitude-Penguin-Great-Ideas/dp/01413...

PS: I believe some of the Christian theologians/philosophers (St. Augustine?) have also written something on the subject though i don't know much about those works.

From the comments here, it seems people have not studied any philosophy and are treating these folks as selfish and thieving

You might want to go reread those philosophy books that you tout so mightily. The subject at hand is a thief by any definition of the word. Comparing him to, say, the Buddha is unskilled thinking at best.

Looked down upon by today's society, yesterday's society, and tomorrow's society (if there is one). In my vernacular, "living off grid" doesn't mean "taking what you need from society but not contributing anything back".

> This can be done in any manner

But should it? Was there any society that ever looked at thieving kindly?

Think of it this way: how many people (family excluded) are you willingly feeding and clothing? If you can justify them stealing from you then giving it away is only philosophically different (societal and legal points aside).

He is clearly a thief:

> Knight survived by breaking into these cabins and a community centre and stealing supplies.

Let him break into your house and take what he wants.

Except there are lots of ways to feed yourself that don't involve stealing. Sure, it is ethical to steal food if that is your only option, but if you choose to live off of stolen food, I don't think that is ethical, just like it would be unethical for a well off person to leave a restaurant without paying.

and in which philosophical systems (that you studied) did monks and sages justify stealing from others? (in any period, in any culture).

genuinely curious.

I see a complete loss of hope here, small joyous moments of human life are too good to leave the world behind.

I suppose these people are stuck between two truths, life & death.

You are looking at this from the wrong pov. The objective of solitary living is to cut yourself off from "society" and its demands/interactions. The ensuing mental calm and peace (there is "joy" in this) is what "hermits" are striving for.

Looks like a homeless beggar living in the woods. There are so many in silicon valley doing exactly same.

The framing this asshole gets from the press continues to astonish me.

"He didn't come out again for 27 years"... well except the 1000+ times he came out to steal shit. And yeah I'm damn sure 27 years of weekly break ins and theft "caused a lot of anxiety" christ that phrase is doing some heavy lifting. "he tried to cause as little damage as possible" which is a hell of a thing to say about 27 years of making the conscious decision to break into people's houses and steal their shit.

Aren't we also breaking in and stealing other, not people, but livings things "stuff" when we mow down their home, destroy their supplies, and then kill them off completely? Is it really a "break in" and "theft" if you are not part of the society that has defined those collective myths? If you are not part of a society that deems that individuals can own stuff, why should you follow those rules? What about when we put upon others our will when we start a war? Is it always wrong to take other peoples possessions or put upon them our will? Is it wrong to take from others that have plenty if you have none? Isn't our modern societies built upon taking stuff that isn't inherently ours, claiming it, and then forcing our will upon those around us, humans and animals alike?

If you are not part of our society, maybe going in and taking our stuff is not as much "break in" and "theft", but just pure and simple survival.

If you're going to take the "might is right" standpoint then society with it's huge police and military force always wins.

I don't even understand why you need to ask these questions. In the past countries routinely ignored other countries' laws by going to war. Even nowadays China is extraditing Chinese Americans who break Chinese laws even if what they did is completely legal in the US.

I ask because the one I asked seems to believe break ins and theft is anything but collective myths existing only because the individuals in our society believe in them. Outside of society, where nature and war takes place, none of those things exist, and since the hermit was not part of society, it’s not break ins and theft, it’s survival. The only thing not allowing things out there is ethics and morals, if one is capable of such, and that, understandably, seems to crumble when standing in the way of survival.

He didn’t really leave society though because his livelihood was entirely dependent on it, without contributing back.

He just pitched a tent and didn’t talk to anyone for 27 years. He really just claimed his own campground for a long time.

Which is always the case, whoever can physically or persuasively force other to comply always win.

You could ask another question.

Should you feel empathy for other people? If the answer is yes then their are a couple of consequences.

Firstly, you should be concerned about the people you take resources from. Not just in terms of money but in terms of emotional impact.

Secondly, we should be concerned about the welfare of starving people in the wilderness. We should have sympathy for them.

Both moral imperatives exist at the same time. And accepting one imperative does not eliminate the other. If you need to steal then you should feel bad about that. And we should care about the dignity of people, even when they do things to harm us.

> Is it always wrong to take other peoples possessions or put upon them our will?

Uh, yes. As far as "wrong" has a meaningful definition, that's wrong.

I presume you are a vegan then

Animals aren't people.

To be clear, they're not people because they're outgroup, not because they're not as smart as us.

Right or wrong is relative.

> this asshole

So he stole a few cans of food from houses that were mostly unoccupied - big deal. There's so much food that gets thrown out on a daily basis, and if you can afford a holiday house in the forest, you're probably generating more than your share:

> In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply. This estimate, based on estimates from USDA’s Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010.

https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs

National Geographic was just a little more thoughtful in their depiction of Christopher Knight:

> Chris Knight left because there was no good spot for him in this world. If you don’t fit in and you’re a murderer, they put you in jail. When you don’t fit in because of mental problems, there are other facilities for you. This is a guy who was extremely bright, but just did not fit in. Some people said, can’t we just give him a little bit of land and a few bags of groceries, and let him live peacefully?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/north-pond-hermi...

Another article from Michael Finkel about Knight:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/15/stranger-in-the...

He took people’s books! That would drive me crazy.

Also, "he tried to cause as little damage as possible" is his side of the story. I'd love to hear the cabin owners' side.

Likely “that guy is a wicked asshole”

Previously on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13878801

IIRC, the article indicates some cabin owners tried to ask him to leave them a shopping list (in part because he was so careful to only take what he needed and do no unnecessary damage -- including relocking the house when he left so no one else could readily get in after him).

Of course, ultimately, they actively tried to catch him -- and succeeded -- because the people in the area got tired of it.

> The framing this asshole gets from the press

... is a trick that Mike Finkel used in order to make Christopher Knight talk:

---

Christopher Knight spent seven months in prison for his thefts, and has chosen not to speak to any journalist other than Mike Finkel.

---

Well, he became a professional thief at age 20.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com