Hacker News Reader

Comment by aflag | Hacker News Reader

I think that's a stronger example than the one proposed. But the outcome is similar. The neighbors are forcibly giving you heat. It just happens that you are ok with 19C. However, if you wanted your home to be cooler than that, to be the same as outside, you'd then have to pay for an AC to do that because your neighbors are making the environment around them hotter. I think stealing is not only taking something that's not yours, but taking something that's not yours without permission. As soon as they start irradiating the heat all over the place, they are effectively giving everyone permission to use it. It's not like you can somehow easily stop or give them back the heat. If they didn't want the heat to escape, then they need to invest in better insulation.

View on HN

My first apartment in Boston was like this. I was on the top floor and I’d have to leave the windows open all winter because it was so unbearably hot from the heat being cranked up in the units below me. I remember nearly sweating to death during a major snowstorm because I had closed the windows to keep the snow out but keeping the snow out meant I kept all of the hot air in!

What you need is some kind of mesh covering for the window that lets air through but not larger particles such as ice crystals or bugs.

Like window screens...?

Yes, window screens allow you to keep windows open when it’s snowing. However, if it’s very windy/stormy you’d still get a lot of water in and probably shutting a part of the window would be necessary.

Yep my wife and I moved to Connecticut from North Carolina. The summers here are very mild compared to what we are used to and as such leave the windows open to stay cool. But as you mentioned the screens do allow in rain if it’s raining and windy. Funny I never thought about seeing if there’s an alternative material for it.

You don't have (the option for) ventilation shafts in your window frames[0]? Here in the Netherlands (and north-west EU) many homes have those, they're designed to allow fresh air to circulate without the need for opening a window. Most houses have those except for really old ones (which have 'natural' ventilation, i.e. creeks) or really new ones (which have a central ventilation system).

[0] for example https://www.duco.eu/Wes/CDN/1/Products/ProductImages/2016-08...

The option exists, but double–hung windows are more popular.

One nice thing about winter heat is that it's just too dry for many insects to survive long. Obviously this depends on the insect, I've noticed that yellow jackets die within a day but lady bugs can survive much longer.

My God, I think I was crazy. It happened to me in several hotels in USA and Europe, I had to leave window open in winter because it was unbereable to be in the hotel room, even with the heating turned off. Glad I am not the only one!

I currently live in the Boston area in an apt. built in 1927. Steam heat. I keep my windows cracked open pretty much all Winter because even with the radiator turned off, I still get too much heat from all sides. Yes, I do have wire mesh screens on my windows.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/945136599/how-spanish-flu-pan...

It was actually designed for this, so you could have fresh air during a pandemic in the winter :)

When you're on the top floor, it's often a catch-22 to do this. Heating for the building can be controlled by a system that takes as input the temperatures from sensors in apartments on the top and bottom floors. So when you open the windows to lower the temperature in your apartment, the system will react by cranking up the heat for the building.

Few things have the same $:QoL ratio as buying insulated pipe wrap for the hot pipe running floor to ceiling through your apartment's bathroom.

> As soon as they start irradiating the heat all over the place, they are effectively giving everyone permission to use it.

Hmm I wouldn't agree with that. I think the Wikipedia definition [1] captures it more accurately: theft is taking someone's property or services without their consent and with the intention to deprive them of it. In the case of heat, you're neither taking "property" (and "services" would be quite a stretch, unless they provide heating as a service...) noor are you "depriving" them of their heat, so it cannot be theft.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

There is one complexity that you left out, which is that they are unknowingly spending more money on heat because of the "freeloader" that they share a wall with.

So I wouldn't call it theft. But it seems like a clear case of freeloading.

It's like that roommate that never does the dishes because they know you will do them when it gets bad enough. Are they stealing your time? I suppose not, but they aren't doing their part.

I wouldn't say it's comparable to that. In this case, they would've faced the exact same problem (even worse, actually), if their neighbor hadn't been home and hence didn't have anything generating heat at all, which the neighbor has every right to do, and which would've provided zero grounds for them to complain. That's drastically different from the dishwashing case where the roommate would actually be using more dishes by their presence than by their absence, not equal (or less).

> I wouldn't say it's comparable to that. In this case, they would've faced the exact same problem (even worse, actually), if their neighbor hadn't been home and hence didn't have anything generating heat at all, which the neighbor has every right to do, and which would've provided zero grounds for them to complain.

At my current residence, the building bylaws require that all units be heated to 60f during the winter, to prevent this exact scenario. So whether it’s a right is very local.

Yeah I'm obviously assuming the resident hasn't already entered into a contract or a jurisdiction with specific laws mandating them to heat their homes, that'd kind of make the question moot.

The countries I used to live in Europe had typically it solved, by using some formulas; the assumption was that living in condominiums puts additional obligations on you; obligatory payments to the renovation funds, paying for shared electricity, heat, services etc.

The original problem 'stealing or not' is most likely moot. The definition of stealing is conventional, unless one believes in some scripture of divine origin detailing such things, or subscribes to philosophies like utilitarianism (which might be fine, it's just hard to argue such things from first principles)

> There is one complexity that you left out, which is that they are unknowingly spending more money on heat because of the "freeloader" that they share a wall with.

They would spend more if they were heating an outside wall with an average temperature below 19 degrees. The unheated apartment acts as additional insulation. An optimal arrangement would be for the hottest apartments to be in the core of the building with cooler apartments radiating out to the edges. But it makes sense in that scenario to price heat into a shared cost that everyone bears equally. No one would be happy with temperatures below their comfort threshold, and at the equilibrium heat flow that satisfies everyone it's worth just about the same marginal cost of keeping the temperature that way; one might offer slightly lower heating prices on the outlying apartments so that residents who had a very low comfort slope vs. temperature could pay slightly less for heat and be slightly cold, making an apartment free for a resident with a steeper comfort slope at a more affordable price.

Actually, they're not. @kmm stated that they prefer their apartment at 19 degrees. Since it is 19 degrees already as a result of heat radiating from neighboring units, even when they have their thermostat set at 19, the heat won't come on.

I don't see how you can justify calling @kmm a freeloader here. Are they obligated to keep their thermostat higher than 19, even though they prefer the temperature of their apartment at 19? If so, why would you say they're obligated to waste energy? The only way to keep the apartment at 19 with the thermostat set higher would be to open the window continuously.

> Are they obligated

No. But the fact that there's no simple way to resolve the freeloading doesn't make them not a freeloader. It's a justification/defense for doing so.

The dictionary definition is "someone who takes advantage of others' generosity without something in return" and is also a derogatory term. In this case, the "freeloader" is not taking advantage of someone's "generosity" and neither are they doing something that deserves to be derogated. In fact, they are doing nothing because they get the heat regardless of whether they want it or not. Since they never asked for the heat, they could be suffering from it isn't having the "advantage.

> Since they never asked for the heat, they could be suffering from it isn't having the "advantage.

But we know it is an advantage to them. They said so.

And freeloading can be passive.

"You're freeloading, but there's not a good way to fix that." seems reasonable to me, in that the derogatory nature of 'freeloader' is basically suspended but it's not forgotten.

There is a way, the neighbors could install better insulation in their flats. They are not being generous with their heating, they are being wasteful. It's a good thing @kmm actually wants that heat. Otherwise it'd be a problem.

If @kmm had their heat turned on (and thermostat set to 19°, then their apartment's heating would contribute to bringing their apartment up to 19°. That would (by Newton's law of cooling) reduce the heat flux through their walls from the neighbor's apartments, causing the neighbors to spend less on heating. The neighbors are thus deprived of the difference in heating costs.

But if the room remains at 19° even when the thermostat is set lower, then the heating will provide the same energy output* regardless of whether it's set at 9° or 19°; that is, zero.

The heat flux through the walls with the neighbours will be the same in either situation, since that depends on the temperature difference, not

The previous comment [0] shows the truth of this, if you wanted the room set to 18° you would need to run cooling, which would cost you AND it would increase the neighbour's bills yet again, since now the heat flux is even greater.

Given the heating output will be zero whether 9° or 19°... this suggests that what people are reacting to is @kmm's intent...

Fair enough in the context of social norms, because with the thermostat set at 9° a non-physics normie would assume they were intending to 'steal' heat, whereas at 19° they are 'contributing fairly'... even when the actual output from their heating is exactly the same.

* This all assuming electrical / heat pump heating and an ideal scenario. In the real world there are temperature variations across the room and the idealist model may very well cease to apply.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29288237

This is largely the same problem as piracy. No, you're not depriving someone of their property that they can no longer use due to your actions, but many people who could very well afford to pay for media (of course barring the horrible issue with how you're actually given a "license") end up depriving the owner of revenue by watching it without paying.

You have deprived them of the opportunity & reasons for you to purchase it from them, which is their motive for creating it.

This is most definitely not like piracy. If you try to make that argument in a courtroom I'm pretty sure you'd get laughed out of the court.

> As soon as they start irradiating the heat all over the place, they are effectively giving everyone permission to use it.

Similarly, it's not theft to just take whatever is left on the curb the evening leading into grabage collection day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com