844 points by firefoxd 28 days ago | 368 comments on HN
| Mild negative
Contested
Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 12:10:52 0
Summary Coercion & Vigilantism Undermines
A personal narrative celebrating the author's sustained use of RF remote coercion to condition a neighbor's television volume over weeks without the neighbor's knowledge or consent. The story frames non-consensual psychological conditioning and extrajudicial 'self-help justice' as clever entertainment, directly undermining UDHR principles regarding personal liberty, property rights, due process, and human dignity.
Seems like a good reason you should need to "pair" the RF remote to the device, similar to Bluetooth. Otherwise a bad actor in an apartment complex could get a "universal" RF remote and randomly try stuff until they can control your devices.
In a similar vein, many years ago I helped someone with a similar problem with a neighbour who had the volume too loud. As the aerial cable was accessible, I suggested he stick a pin through the neighbour's cable whenever the volume got too loud, and pull it out when the volume went down.
Sure enough, after a while the neighbour learnt their TV only worked if they kept the volume down in the evening.
I have a TV-Be-Gone device, which is designed to disable TV’s in a certain radius. It has been an absolutely wonderful little accessory during business trips .. someone watching something obnoxious at the hotel bar? TV-Be-Gone!
A Flipper Zero would be the modern equivalent, I suppose. I like the idea of being able to turn off devices in a certain radius - but I don’t like the idea of everyone having one. Having ultimate power over the wireless noise in my immediate vicinity - awesome .. but seeing someone empty their pockets at the airport and a Flipper Zero in the inspection box - not so fun.
It’s going to be a wild and woolly future, the more these kinds of shenanigans become relevant.
The HTC One smartphone came with a programmable IR port. All you had to do was determine the TV brand (easy if you can see it), then point the top of the phone at the TV pushing the "power" button until it went off. Then you knew you had the right configuration.
I mostly used it for turning volume down in waiting rooms or at bars, but a bar was also where I figured out most of their TVs tend to be set to the same control because they had a few with their sensors in a line where I was sitting and they all went off together while I was programming it.
One of the phone features I miss most, after the 3.5mm jack. Nobody needs to hear loud daytime TV in a waiting room.
I had a very similar story related to this as well.
For the longest time I always assumed RF remotes were the ancient ones, as growing up, we had an old large Magnavox console tv, with just such a remote.
As time progressed we went to IR, which was, as I'll explain below, a welcome relief!
The tv was positioned in a basement room, just under my bedroom. Every few months I would be rustled from my sleep, at 4AM, to come downstairs to the tv turned on, blaring full volume and on channel 99 (static). This continued for a while until I realized that my father, who is HAM operator, and an early riser, would somehow be injecting into the remote sensor on certain frequencies occasionally. Needless to say it was thusly unplugged afterwards!
There was a Windows 2000 bug that would allow the computer to be crashed via a malformed IrDA packet. Of course someone crafted a Palm Pilot app to zonk all the vulnerable PCs in the vicinity. It worked on servers as well. Endless fun for a little while.
What a story. Be friendly to your neighbors, otherwise they might turn off your TV!
When I was living in Berlin, the entire apartment complex had a WhatsApp group and people would (of course it's Berlin) party a lot. People would ask each other to turn down the volume, which worked for the most part - at least for severe partying. Best messages were like "you've been partying all night, it's 2pm, I need some silence to have a meeting.
Back then I was dreaming of some shared application, people could put on their phone or laptop and then the collective could decide or at least hint through that software that the volume was up too high.
Reminds of a neighbor I had back when I was renting in a big city. He didn’t seem to understand what’s wrong with keeping his TV on for very long periods broadcasting the sleaziest (at least at the time) reality show on full volume.
I tried talking to him multiple times to no avail. He’d basically say “yeah I’ll pay attention no problem” but nothing changed for weeks.
Coincidentally at that time I was working morning shifts at a radio station. Those start really early so you gotta wake up at around 4am.
I decided one day to change my alarm (triggered on my Sony Vaio) from the peaceful iPhone-like tunes to System of a Down’s “Chop Suey”. I also decided to forget it on, on repeat, full volume, while leaving the apartment.
I don’t think 3 days passed before he knocked loudly at my door, moaning and complaining.
I told him: “you gotta understand, your TV was so loud I couldn’t sleep for nights on end, the old tune wouldn’t wake me up anymore. I had to change it. I’m so tired that I even forget to turn it off.
Haha I did something similar to my teebage neighbour and his Bluetooth boombox that he’d blast at midnight when his parents were away. I’d connect to his device and disconnect immediately. He also learned to turn it down after that. That was our communication channel. Every time it was too loud I’d connect and disconnect. Immediately after he’d reduce the volume to something reasonable.
Many of us have an aging neighbor whose hearing gradually worsens. The TV volume creeps up over time.
A simple, thoughtful fix is to gift them a wireless TV speaker designed for this exact problem.
The Sony SRS-LSR200 sits close to the listener, so dialogue is clear without blasting the TV for everyone else. It lets them enjoy their shows again without turning the volume knob into a neighborhood event.
My neighbor is smoking on the balcony, and smoke goes to my home with little kids. I talked with him several times, didn't help. It's his territory, so not much I can do, besides closing the doors. But at least i can use this fake smoke detector with VERY ANNOYING random buzzer. It starts buzzing when i connect to it my iPhone via BLE. Makes it not as relaxing to smoke on the balcony as it planned to be for him. I'm going to train this mofo with reinforcement learning like a fkn Pavlov Dog.
Not saying it's right for everyone, but I moved off-grid where my nearest neighbor is 5km away.
20 years in an apartment in the city was enough for me, as I grew older I realized there are too many things outside of my control if I want silence and peace of mind.
Ugh, this reminds me of a neighbor of a family member. They have a backyard, and sometimes, it is pleasurable to sit, grill, bbq, etc. in a backyard, particularly in the summer months. You know, normal suburban stuff.
The neighbor has some sort of device that emits extremely loud, extremely high-pitched (but not ultrasonic; or at least, not exclusively ultrasonic) noise. The family member thinks its some sort of anti-rodent thing. Whatever that means in suburbia, as there are, of course, nigh-endless squirrels, rabbits, birds, etc. all over the place. The yards are all fenced, so probably no deer at least in the back yards.
But it is absolutely annoying to just get what amounts to a DoS attack on your ears when you're trying to have a pleasant conversation with someone in the sun.
Of course, the elders in the family hear nothing, and the pitch is truly that high, that yeah, older people might not still have hearing in that range. "Unfortunately" for me, I still have ears.
I hate loud neighbors. But I also am disappointed more apartments aren't built to be sound proof and that even if they are it's nearly impossible to find out if they actually are before moving in.
My good experience that told me this is possible is in 1999 I moved in to the my first apartment with a built in washer and dryer. When the agent showed me the apartment and pointed out the washer and dryer, I said something like "I guess I need to be sure not to use it too late so it won't annoy the neighbors". The agent said, "this building was originally built to be condos. Each outer wall is 6 inches of concrete with 6 inches of space between it and the next wall for the next unit. You can run the washer and dryer anytime you want, your neighbors won't hear it.
I've never been lucky enough to live in another apartment built that way. My current apartment, the neighbors are up stomping around the room and having loud conversations til 5am. I think they call family in Korea and so are up to match the time.
I haven't talked to them about it yet but I wish I just didn't have to and the apartment was designed better.
I have a Concept 2 rowing machine. I've measured: it's about 65db when I'm rowing easy, 70, maybe a bit more, when I'm rowing hard.
Most times when I row, it's for half an hour or so, but it can be up to 45 minutes to an hour, or sometimes up to an hour 40, or rarely 3.5 hours (I row a marathon once or twice a year).
There are two components to the noise it makes: there's the whirr of the gear as I pull on the chain, and the rush of wind from the fan it spins.
I think the whirr is more prominent/annoying. I've carefully crafted a box to fit over the section of the rower where the gears are. That dampens the noise a great deal. There's still the opening where the chain goes in, so if anyone has ideas for that I'm happy to hear them.
I also have foam pads for the thing to rest on, in case it vibrates at the feet (I don't think it does).
At my old high-rise apartment I'd row until midnight, and no one ever complained. Now I'm in a brownstone, so I'm keeping it to before 10pm. Hopefully that's enough that I'm not a bad neighbor.
When I lived in a NYC studio apartment, the neighbor directly above me was a DJ and used to mix club dance music at full volume. Around then I discovered the fuse boxes for several adjacent floors were located just down the hall from me in an unlocked utility closet.
We had such a neighbour also with an extremely loud TV on nearly all the time. We eventually deduced that he was deaf. We bought him headphones for the TV with a letter explaining the issue. Problem solved.
Having the privilege to live in a house without common walls to a neighbor is the biggest quality of life improvement I've ever had the good fortune to experience.
I'd take a hell of a long commute to the burbs' before I'd go back to dealing with b.s. like this.
Loud music, slashed tires if you called the cops, people smoking weed and cigars and stinking up the whole building, parking space shortages, drunks throwing up in the stiarwells, screaming matches between people in bad relationships, horribly maintained flats and every repair done on the cheap, 4am fire alarms, a rat problem the owners would not put money in to fix properly, the list goes on and on over the 20+ years I lived in rentals.
I had a neighbor who mounted his TV directly on the shared wall to my bedroom in violation of the lease terms. The wall was hollow and seemed to not only conduct the sound into my bedroom but act as a natural amplifier.
I offered him a nice speaker system I wasn't using but he said he didn't know how to connect it to the TV. I offered to do it for him but he refused. I offered to pay a professional and he still refused. I was forced to move my bed into the living room so I could sleep through the night as he started his day by watching the news at full blast at 3am.
Naturally, in response I propped those speakers to the same wall and played whale calls at a low volume any time I wasn't home.
It's pretty easy to do, a Pi (of any kind) and an IR LED that sends the power button codes for the common TV brands will do it (since it's often a toggle, it'll also turn TV's on if they are off).
RF remotes are harder to hack together but similar principle. Whether IR or RF, the codes are common across all devices of the same model/protocol.
I wish there was an easy solution like this for smoking "neighbours". Some sort of detection device that instantly closes my windows automatically and then "explodes" a nasty "stinking bomb" outside (e.g. automatic opening of a container with butyric acid or similar), so it smells worse than their smoke. Eventually their brains would connect smoking with nasty stinking and stop doing it.
RF chokes on the cables are sometimes necessary. The clip-on ones work well, and are cheap. Part of being a Ham is mitigating EMI your broadcasting may cause.
As a side note, intentionally jamming or interfering with other peoples signals can carry up to a $1m fine and several years in prison. =3
N900 had one too, along with an FM transmitter, just in case you wanted to override whatever generic radio station was playing at full volume in the coffee shop
Honestly I could see arguments going both ways. Pairing prevents unauthorized access, but at the same time, pairing means you need to be able to pair without having a paired device on-hand.
For a passive read-only device (like most satellite/cable receivers 20 years ago), it was probably more important to allow customers to easily replace their lost remotes than it was to prevent pranksters (who could often be dissuaded by more physical means).
There was a guy who did TV-Be-Gone chips to put into car keyfobs (certain Valeo fobs used in Rovers, Citroëns, Peugeots, Renaults, and high-end Toyotas were infrared, in the late 80s/early 90s, and the remote central locking fobs were cheaply available from your friendly neighbourhood scrappy for pennies by the late 90s).
He also did a considerably more expensive one that worked on Furbies, which "chatted" in sync using infrared, and told every Furby in the room to stop talking and go to sleep immediately.
If you had child back then, or you babysat one, you'll know why this one was his biggest seller.
One could argue that "interference" is not entirely a objective technical definition, but also subjective w.r.t quality of the service expected.
Also, in this scenario, if the two remotes were to transmit simultaneously, it is possible both boxes could have received some mangled, unregonizable waveform due to the interference.
One of the reasons why I want to move out from the city and have a house far away from everyone else. Nobody disturbing my peace. Nobody complaining about my noise.
I'd feel a bit too lonely at 5km distance to the nearest neighbor as a matter of fact I don't think I ever visited or stayed at such a property. Are you completely off grid? What are the drawbacks of living in such a place and is it overall a better deal for you? It sounds very tempting for me too but I don't think I'm ready for this just yet.
Brown noise always does the trick for me when things get noisy, and being very careful about choosing the apartment/room you rent, making sure it's at least somewhat quiet.
From childhood I remember there was a guy who was blasting loud music whole day. He wouldn't stop, so one neighbour got so angry he took an axe, demolished this guy's door, took his stereo and launched it through the window, through the glass. Fortunately it landed in the garden on the other side. Then he said next time he will chop him up and throw through the window.
That was the end of nuisance.
Police came, but all the neighbours said they didn't hear anything and the guy did it himself, must have gone insane.
I'm sure it depends on demographic/country etc, but I've lived in Apartments where everyone was considerate, no loud neighbours, no smokers. Everyone just peacefully co-existed. (I've also experienced the opposite, and unfortunately, it is more common.)
I can relate to this very much. A city guy, no one could understand my (also) 20 years of complaining about neighbors with loud music, slamming doors, making noise after midnight, etc etc. I lived on top floors, and I even spent a fortune living in a luxury building that was newly built, hoping sound insulation was higher end. The problem is that bass music travels through everything. I suffered from being woken up in the night by party goers, and early morning by door slammers. Once I wake up, it takes me a long time to fall back asleep. On weekends, when I want to stay at home and just play a game or read, people play music in the afternoon and often I would stress over some sort of party nearby beginning that evening, forcing me to find somewhere to go just to avoid the noise. Eventually I purchased a home in the woods.
What's happening to make us a minority here is at the minimum:
- Younger people are less sensitive to noise, go out more, and generally don't understand how distressful it can be
- Some people are light sleepers as well as get cognitively overloaded, needing relatively quiet environments to relax. People like me are in a tiny minority.
- Cities are the future, they're the greener option, and you're supposed to prefer the dense apartment life instead of the car one, on ethical grounds.
So when I detailed my suffering several times here on HN, and suggested dense cities are not mentally healthy for many people such as myself, I got downvoted. There's a bit of politics behind city living that folks who don't have cognitive sensitivities around noise just won't relent from.
Preamble affirms human dignity and equal rights. Content celebrates non-consensual coercion without acknowledging violations of these foundational principles, though with humor suggesting partial self-awareness.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'I'm not that kind of neighbor' then describes weeks of coercive interference with neighbor's property without consent.
Inferences
Narrative tone treats non-consensual coercion as justified entertainment, undermining Preamble's affirmation of human dignity.
Article 22 protects right to social security and realization of economic and cultural rights. Author interferes with neighbor's access to entertainment/cultural content (TV).
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author repeatedly powers off neighbor's television, interfering with ability to access entertainment and cultural content.
Inferences
Systematic interference with television access restricts neighbor's ability to enjoy cultural content, though connection to Article 22's broader social security is indirect.
Article 25 addresses adequate standard of living and housing. Author's interference doesn't directly affect housing adequacy but undermines neighbor's ability to peacefully enjoy home.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Interference occurs within neighbor's home, disrupting ability to peacefully occupy and enjoy residence.
Inferences
Sustained coercive interference within one's home undermines right to adequate living standard and peaceful housing enjoyment, though connection is indirect.
Article 27 protects participation in cultural life. Author's interference prevents peaceful participation in entertainment/cultural activities (watching TV).
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author's interference prevents neighbor from peacefully watching television, common cultural/entertainment activity.
Inferences
Systematic interference with television access restricts neighbor's ability to participate in cultural/entertainment activity, though indirectly related to Article 27.
Article 28 affirms right to social and international order in which human rights are realized. Author undermines social order by taking unilateral coercive action instead of working through proper channels.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Rather than involving landlord, mediation, or law enforcement, author unilaterally enforces preferred behavior through technological coercion.
Inferences
Unilateral extrajudicial enforcement undermines principle of social order based on law and respect for rights as articulated in Article 28.
Article 1 affirms equal dignity and inalienable rights. Narrative objectifies neighbor as subject for behavioral conditioning without treating him as equal rights-holder.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author describes neighbor needing to be 'taught' and compares conditioning to 'a circus animal trainer.'
Inferences
Framing neighbor as object to train rather than person with agency violates foundational principle of equal dignity.
Article 7 guarantees equal protection and legal remedy. Author takes extrajudicial action without recourse to law, landlord, or mediation, establishing himself as judge and enforcer.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
After neighbor refuses dialogue, author chooses weeks of coercive interference rather than escalating to landlord, management, or law enforcement.
Inferences
Choosing unilateral technological coercion instead of equal legal processes violates Article 7's guarantee of equal protection and legal remedy.
Article 9 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention. Author's interference confines neighbor's ability to control and enjoy property—form of arbitrary restriction.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author admits his 'arbitrary threshold' for volume and applies punishment whenever self-determined threshold is exceeded.
Inferences
Using unstated, arbitrary personal standard to trigger punitive interference against another person violates principle against arbitrary restriction.
Article 20 protects freedom of peaceful assembly and association. When neighbor had guests, author still interfered with set-top box to disrupt gathering, restricting neighbor's ability to peacefully associate.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'Sometimes, he would have company and there would be noise coming out of his apartment. I used the one tool in my tool box to send him a message. Turn off the TV.'
Inferences
Deliberately interfering with neighbor's ability to enjoy entertainment with guests restricts freedom to peacefully gather and associate.
Article 24 protects rest and leisure. Author's interference prevents neighbor from peacefully enjoying leisure time (TV). Even when compliant, threat of device shutdown prevents genuine rest.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author systematically interferes with neighbor's television use during leisure time over weeks, forcing behavioral compliance through threat of device shutdown.
Inferences
Preventing peaceful enjoyment of leisure activity through coercive interference violates Article 24's protection of rest and leisure.
Article 29 articulates duties to community. Author has duties to neighbor and community, including duty to seek peaceful resolution through dialogue and proper channels. Instead, author chooses coercive conditioning.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author's initial dialogue attempt was rebuffed, but author chose coercive punishment over escalating to landlord or community mediation.
Inferences
Choosing unilateral technological coercion over community-based conflict resolution mechanisms violates duty to community expressed in Article 29.
Article 3 protects liberty and security of person. Author deliberately interferes with neighbor's security (inability to control devices) and liberty (inability to enjoy entertainment without coercive interruption).
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'Every time he turned the TV on, I pressed the power button again and his device went off' and continued for weeks, sometimes 'battling my stubborn neighbor all night.'
Inferences
Sustained non-consensual interference with someone's ability to control their property and enjoy security in home violates Article 3's personal liberty and security protections.
Article 6 affirms right to recognition as person. Narrative frames neighbor as object to train (circus animal metaphor, Pavlovian conditioning language), denying recognition of agency and personhood.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'Like a circus animal trainer, I remained consistent' and describes process as 'Pavlovian conditioning,' comparing neighbor to animal rather than person.
Inferences
Deliberate depersonification through animal training metaphors denies recognition of neighbor's status as rights-bearing person.
Article 8 provides right to effective remedy by competent tribunals. Neighbor receives no remedy, no hearing, no recourse—doesn't know about interference initially, making remedy impossible.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Neighbor never discovers interference source until weeks into conditioning, at which point author has established pattern of coercive control.
Inferences
Systematic interference without neighbor's knowledge prevents him from seeking remedy or having grievance addressed through proper channels.
Article 10 guarantees fair and public hearing. Neighbor receives no hearing. Author's dialogue attempt is rejected; instead of escalating through proper channels, author chooses coercive punishment without any hearing.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author knocked twice; when neighbor refused, author chose weeks of coercive interference rather than any formal complaint process.
Inferences
Denying neighbor any hearing or fair process before and during weeks of coercive punishment violates Article 10's fair hearing protections.
Article 5 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Sustained psychological conditioning (remote 'under his pillow,' nightly 'battling') without victim's knowledge, intent to force behavioral compliance, constitutes degrading treatment.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author describes keeping remote 'under his pillow,' battling 'all night,' and explicitly using Pavlovian conditioning to force behavioral change without neighbor's knowledge or consent.
Inferences
Systematic psychological conditioning of another person without knowledge or consent, to force behavioral compliance, meets definition of degrading treatment under Article 5.
Article 11 guarantees presumption of innocence and fair trial. Author acts as judge (determines threshold), accuser (decides when exceeded), and executioner (punishes) without due process, presumption of innocence, or fair trial.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'my arbitrary threshold' and unilaterally decides volume compliance rules, implementing punishment when threshold passed without any process.
Inferences
Unilateral determination of guilt and punishment based on arbitrary personal threshold, without due process or fair trial, violates Article 11's protections.
Article 12 protects against arbitrary interference with privacy and property. Author deliberately, systematically interferes with neighbor's property (set-top box) and privacy (ability to control entertainment) without consent, knowledge, or legitimate authority.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author repeatedly interferes with neighbor's set-top box using RF remote signals, causing device shutdown multiple times over weeks without neighbor's awareness or consent.
Inferences
Deliberate, sustained interference with another person's property and ability to control home entertainment violates Article 12's protection against arbitrary interference.
Article 17 protects right to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of it. Author deliberately interferes with neighbor's property (set-top box) without ownership or legitimate authority, repeatedly causing it to malfunction for his purposes.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author uses RF remote signals to repeatedly power off neighbor's set-top box without permission or knowledge, interfering with ability to use his own property.
Inferences
Deliberate, sustained interference with another person's property to achieve behavioral control violates Article 17's protection of property rights.
Author uses 'teach my neighbor,' 'trained like a circus animal,' and 'Pavlovian conditioning' to frame coercive control in behavioral science language that normalizes it.
appeal to emotion
Entire narrative framed as humorous and entertaining, inviting readers to find amusement in non-consensual coercion, making harmful behavior seem benign or clever.
false dilemma
Author presents situation as binary: either accept weeks of noise OR coerce neighbor. Alternative conflict resolution paths (mediation, landlord involvement, legal channels) not presented.
build 1ad9551+j7zs · deployed 2026-03-02 09:09 UTC · evaluated 2026-03-02 10:41:39 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.