Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gordonjcp | Hacker News Reader

> Do Not Disturb mode. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No notifications, no texts, no calls, nothing at all begging for my attention.

What do you actually do during the day, that warrants such a brain-in-a-jar lifestyle with no need to interact with other people?

View on HN

You can interact with people in ways other than the immediate interruption that come from phone notifications. Asynchronous communication (answering E-mails, texts, voice messages) can happen on your own schedule when it's least disruptive. You can do it as frequently as you want, too, if responsiveness is important. The point is that you are in control of when that interaction happens, not the device.

I'm reminded of the band Kraftwerk's strategy for dealing with interruptions, from their Wiki page[1]:

"... anyone trying to contact the band for collaboration would be told the studio telephone did not have a ringer since, while recording, the band did not like to hear any kind of noise pollution. Instead, callers were instructed to phone the studio precisely at a certain time, whereupon the phone would be answered by Ralf Hütter, despite never hearing the phone ring."

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk

This is telling. A generation has had interruptions so normalised, that for them it's a given that you're interrupted as part of interactions with other people.

Were you to _call_ them on their phones though, they'd stare in horror at the device, wondering who could be so mentally deranged. The irony makes me smile :)

A call requires immediate attention, which is not always possible and often unnecessary. A notification lets you know that there is something to check out, but you can choose when to check it out.

That's fair, though I think what most of us are talking about is the interruption itself.

>> A generation has had interruptions so normalised

When I was growing up, the phone would ring and you would answer it without knowing who it was because people didn't have answering machines or caller ID. Interruptions were much more intrusive then.

I'm probably one of the oldest people on here. Certainly I'm far older than the "kids these days with their beeping pinging phones, how can they stand it" demographic.

How does not liking notifications and engaging with messengers, social networks and other sources of high-volume input translate to not interacting with other people? There's still, you know, real life?!

So you never talk with your friends when they're not physically close to you?

Why wouldn't I? We talk on the phone, sometimes have video calls (usually in groups) and occasionally use SMS as a fallback if a call is not an option. E-Mail is also sometimes involved if it's a more in-depth exchange or something involving E-Mail anyway (booking confirmations and the like).

edit after re-reading: I didn't mean to make my original comment sound like there is only real life. Just that not liking and not engaging with more or less continuous modes of communication and notifications does not equal not interacting with people.

What do you think people did before smartphones, or even before the internet? It wasn't that long ago, you could ask someone. You know, in person.

We had these things called "phones", which were attached to the wall with a bit of wire, and made a loud chiming sound when someone wanted to talk to you. They didn't have a "Do Not Disturb" mode as such, but typically if you wanted to use it to talk to someone you would do so if it was important.

People spent significant periods of time away from phones, and those calling did not have strong expectations of being answered right away.

I know a friend who had "speaking hours" where he'd respond quickly to messages, outside of that, writing to him over email/IM was asynchronous.

OP can also schedule time (and place?) to chat to others.

There are other ways to interact with people than through texts or calls. Besides, GP did not say that he doesn't text or do calls he just said that they aren't begging for his attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com