90% of Waking Hours Spent Staring at Glowing Rectangles (2009)
theonion.com
theonion.com
Are we talking about chatting with friends? Doing work? Watching a show? Playing a game? Reading the news? A novel? Meeting with people? Organising transport? Finding a place to eat?
There is a diversity of rectangles, and for each rectangle there is a diversity of uses.
"90% of waking hours spent activating tendons in response to electrical impulses".
There was a submission this morning or yesterday about "if we could live our lives over" where many HNers were lamenting how they felt like they were wasting their precious hours. How many of those people would say that their screen time wasn't contributing? Or that it was actually fulfilling?
Not sure who here relates to the idea of spending the bulk of their screen time organizing transport and planning dinner parties or whatever. Or the idea of "no, I actually do like how much time I spend on <vice> and I'm trying to get those numbers up even higher."
For some reason whenever this topic comes up, we have people playing coy with what "screen time" could possibly be referring to. "What, you're saying it's bad to use my iPhone to Facetime my dying father?"
Engage with the argument rather than its presentation, and you might just move the conversation forward.
I agreed with him that maybe there's something to not always looking at screens. But I strongly disgree with you. I was attacking a dangerous part of the argument.
I’d be interested in seeing this extended to “listening time” as well since I probably use my headphones and speakers more than I use the glowing rectangles.
Once one has read whatever articles they were interested in for that day, that's it. No refreshing multiple times per day, no reading long comment threads, no frustration about said comment threads ("how can people be so wrong on the internet, must reply"), no live updates on stories, and more time to think instead of mindlessly consuming more information that's of lower quality.
The New Yorker has long form articles that take longer to read than the typical daily newspaper article, sure, but I'm not sure how that makes it non finite or more engaging than daily newspapers.
They don't throw them out because they really intend to finish them one day.
This topic comes up a lot and I am always astounded at how people so candidly compare screens to books. Many people I meet in my day to day life do not have the concentration required to read a novel. Maybe its time to put my glowing rectangle down.
Or, if they weren't reading, they'd flip on the TV and watch whatever was on for four hours, then brush their teeth, then Johnny Carson in bed. It's not like the average American was spending their evening sculpting before the internet.
Even before screens, some people talked on the phone compulsively, some played chess compulsively, some sat in their basement building things out of legos compulsively. Now it's possible to do all those things via a single screen. When looked at in this way, a screen is basically just a tool that takes on the form of many different physical objects rather than something nefarious.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/media’s-first-moral-pan...
https://didyouknowfacts.com/facts/as-novels-became-more-prom...
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Novel-Reading-Pani...
Some went so far as to ban reading for certain groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_per...
There was vastly more time spent interacting directly with friends and family as well as hobbies and interests that were not consuming media. It was much more common for people to stop by, often unannounced and hang out and talk for several hours. Just talking in person was very popular. Also, people spent much more time on errands and house tasks. It was very rare to have landscapers or housekeepers. This was before dishwashers and people rarely ate out. So cooking and cleaning were common. Super cheap goods from China had not yet arrived so maintenance on things around the house was more common than replacement.
This isn’t at all to be taken as things were better, or worse, it is simply to relay that people did a lot more than consume media and communicate electronically.
https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv-consumption-by...
For history you can see that about 30-40 years ago people watched 7 hours of TV per day, then it went up to 9 and now it goes down again as people start using computers instead. I don't think this is a bad development switching from TV to computers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-...
My dad spent his time reading the newspaper or Dick Francis murder mysteries, my mom spent her time either on the phone talking to people or laying cards. (Like Windows Solitaire but with actual cards).
When I wasn't fighting with my sisters I spent my time reading Donald Duck comics or playing Lego on my own.
Sure, we can pretend that we spent so much quality time with another all the time before screens came along, I'm just not sure it's actually true.
So the screen being a technological and commercial artifact, imposes a lot of rules on how we interact through it, sort of like an API. And that's noteworthy compared to the time before we were interacting through screens.
In-person human to human interaction also has some significant negatives. It's very low bandwidth as information must be transmitted mostly via voice which is lossy and prone to misinterpretation on either end. Attempts to terminate interactions early may have negative effects on future ability open an interaction with that individual. The in-person protocol also forces you to transmit visual sidechannel information, including biometric details. Other individuals can and will judge you throughout the interaction based on these biometric details.
Ultimately we all live in the virtual worlds we create in our minds through interpreting our senses, it’s not immediately obvious to me why I should generally prefer one over the other.
When I'm reading a book, I'm not just staring at a binding of paper. When I'm listening to music, I'm not just sticking earbuds into my ears and staring blankly at the wall. Has the author ever used a phone before? Or are they just glowing rectangles to them?
Here are some relics with sane typography, iconic icons and compact UI [1][2][3].
[1] https://www.martinmajoor.com/6_my_philosophy.html
Those are opinions, of course, but I don't think the basics (like soothed senses) are controversial, many of which can be objectively studied.
Your examples seem to have plenty of whitespace, at least 1 and 2 do. That said I quite like whitespace.
I think there much to be said for sites that look like traditional nicely done books eg https://bikes-n-stuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMG_922... which is a look which evolved over many decades.
> "I was on the phone getting directions to a restaurant we were going out to," Pamela said, "when Larry started yelling, 'No, no, don't ask! I'll find it!' So he opens up mapquest.com, enters our address and the restaurant's, and within 10 minutes, he had complete door-to-door directions printed out."
> "That's right," Larry said. "And she wanted to get a pen and write down the directions by hand."
[1] https://www.theonion.com/area-man-consults-internet-whenever...
Love when they give the parents little pieces of humor like that!
It bothers me that instead of adapting the tool to us we have adapted ourselves to the tool.
Isn't that always the way it is? Society made obvious shifts with the invention of the car. With the invention of the printing press, we adapted by teaching people to read the things it produced.
Adapting to our tools seems like the reason we live anything like we currently do. Otherwise we'd still live in communities in the woods, with technology that has adapted to us (which is an interesting thing to think about).
• Explore a national park, go on a few hikes (guided by paper maps and a compass), and refine your photography skills with a DSLR/mirrorless. Budget ones can be had for a couple hundred dollars and they still beat phone cameras. • Cook something with your friends, or go out and eat dinner. • Play some board games, join a dungeon and dragons game. A great thing to do when the weather is bad. • If you have children, spend some screen free, activity free time with them. You could just chat, teach them spontaneous new skills, or explore together. • Have a maker itch but don’t want to look at a screen? Play around with physical hardware. Get a soldering iron, some components from Digikey, and make something yourself (and have fun). • Go to a party, festival, or rave. • Drive somewhere and just camp with good company and some drinks. • Meet a friend or colleague spontaneously for coffee and just catch up. • Draw. • Learn renovation and make your home better, just the way you want it (and increase its value). • Learn how to change oil on your car and start doing maintenance yourself. Fixing a car is kinda like fixing a computer. • Go for a swim. • Go to the gym, or workout with mates. • Read a book. • Go for a walk while listening to your favourite albums.
Life is filled with meaningful, screen-free alternatives. You just have to appreciate them.
The only real way to escape smartphones is to live a 1970s life where the only things you know come from other people or the radio/tv. I have a slight yen to try this but I can't bear to actually try it. It would be like cutting off a limb. I'd be so information poor.
I don’t understand why spending time researching a cool Airbnb diminishes the non-screen-time nature of going to the mountains.
We’ve known about this a long time, even before screens were interactive.