I use https://steplimit.com/ to both cure my Reddit addiction and to walk more. You earn minutes on your tracked app(s) by walking. If you run out of minutes, either stop scrolling or go for a walk. It's so simple and so effective.
Whenever I see something like this, I think wow this is gonna be so effective and change my life and then two weeks later it’s uninstalled and I’m slack jaw standing over the sink browsing Instagram
Scrolling is a bad habit. It's hard to kill habits outright, so you need to replacement.
Step one is figuring out what triggers the habit. Step two is finding a replacement.
Something that worked for me is keeping certain websites to the "big screen" (aka my computer). If I want to browse Reddit I have to get up and go to my PC. I've blocked it on my phone. For me, scrolling on my PC is a little more managable because hey while I'm there and looking at Reddit, I can open up a terminal and update my packages, or check my todos, or put on music...
I've struggled at times with various app blockers and limits. Most of them are just a little too easy to disable — or they prevent usage altogether.
AppBlock on Android has a feature that allows you to continue using an app after your time limit is up — if you're willing to wait 3 minutes without swiping to another app. And then, by default, it'll kick back in 15 minutes later.
I’ve found the most effective tool to be uninstalling the apps, being logged out in the browser, then building up a deep resentment for the manipulative practices these apps/sites employ.
Friends send me links on Instagram all the time and it’s always a multi-step process to see it in the browser without being logged in. It’s half-broken and super annoying. If a search query sends me to Instagram, it just breaks 80% of the time and locks me out. If I click on any of the bait designed to lure people into view more content, it will throw up a wall and require downloading the app or logging in. This all serves to fuel the hate I have for these platforms. If they’re going to make it that hard to use, I don’t want to use it, and there must be very powerful and financially motivated reasons why they are pushing me toward a certain engagement model.
I once took screenshots of all the BS I had to go through when he sent me one of those links, so he could see how bad it was and stop spamming me with every other video in his algorithm. At the time it was a 3-4 step process of dismissing modal windows for every link he sent.
One person who texts me most often primarily sends vapid social media content. I disabled notifications on his texts and check them on my time, skipping most of them. I don't feel the need to cut someone out of my life who I've known for 20+ years over their instagram addiction (which seems to be what you're implying if I read between the lines).
The big AI push has made him more interested in what is happening with all these tech companies and he doesn't like it. I'm trying to use it nudge him off these platforms run by companies he claims to despise.
I don’t have a problem with it. The only social media adjacent sites I use are YouTube and this one. Any other accounts I had in the past have either been deleted or deactivated for years now.
You’re theory, that my friend using Instagram translates into an addiction for me, doesn’t hold water. I spent 6 years where the 5 people I spent the most time with all smoked, and I’ve never had a cigarette in my life. Values are stronger than peer pressure, especially as an adult. By the end of those 6 years there was only one smoker left.
I’m not sure why you assume I should trend toward an unhealthy habit, instead of him trending toward a healthier habit, especially as his hate for the tech industry grows. I also don’t really care if he quits himself, I just want him to not send so many reels my way. He is already good about not being on his phone when hanging out in person. It’s not that big of a deal.
Interesting comparison, because the behavior in question (doomscrolling, inability to manage compulsion, time mismanagement) is definitely linked to ADHD/depression.
Good faith? All you’ve done in this thread is vaguepost and talk down to people who opened up about something they’re struggling with.
You said tech can’t fix human problems. I gave you examples. You dodged with something cryptic about mental health. al_borland said they’re helping a friend off these platforms and you told them “good luck fixing your own problem.” gf263 said they’ve been trying for ten years, and you said they’re “resistant to positive change, and that’s dangerous to me.”
Here’s what you’re actually doing: reframing an ordinary struggle as a pathology someone’s in denial about, which puts you above them and turns their disagreement into “resistance.” It’s unfalsifiable. Any tool that works didn’t fix the real problem; anyone who pushes back isn’t ready yet. You’ve built a position where you can’t be wrong and everyone else needs help.
Do you actually want people to solve their problems, or do you just want to talk down to them and feel bigger? Ask yourself who really has the problem here.
I am the developer of an app in similar genre called Run for Fun which lets you block addictive apps of your choosing until you exercise (run, walk, bike, climb stairs, exercise to burn calories etc). It's very customizable depending upon how aggressive you need it to be:
In my time I heard some people called this the "Tower Records effect". If the workplace is cool enough (record store, video game company, rock band), enough kids will want to work there that the employer can pay peanuts and won't run out of applicants.
If this story is true, this is definitely a step in the wrong direction, but comparing freedom of Germany and China in those terms takes some special kind of mind bending.
> I guess the value of the tool is that it gives you that same benefit for the cost of a few tokens.
But it doesn't give you the same benefit. It gives you the partial benefit of catching these problems before they go to production, but it doesn't give you the remaining benefit of teaching your team about where their mental models are broken. A team that decides to delegate this responsibility entirely to AI is going to have a hard time learning about these serious defects in their mental models. Fixing those defects will pay dividends throughout the code base, not just in the places where AI would detect security failing.
Not if you treat it as a magical box that fixes things on its own. We're a tiny team and our process has improved a lot thanks to processing AI reviews and learning common patterns. It gets tiring to get the same feedback over and over so humans learn.
They dropped that a long time ago, at least a decade ago. Which is really an odd thing to do, what company would think that not being evil was holding it back but Google clearly did.
While this is a common quip that I find pretty funny, it's not really true. What actually happened was that while updating their code of conduct[0], Google changed it to only say "don't be evil" in one place instead of multiple[1].
Google was also sued by former employees who claim they were fired because they tried to prevent Google from doing evil[2], in accordance with the code of conduct they agreed to. Sadly that lawsuit ended with a secret settlement, so we'll never know what a jury thinks. Since "don't be evil" is still in there I suppose it could come up again.
"Don't be evil" was dropped after the DoubleClick acquisition completed their internal takeover of the old "Don't be evil" Google (Google purportedly purchased DoubleClick, in reality they 'did' purchase them, but then the old DoubleClick advertisers slowly took over old Google from the inside out).
What is called "Google" today is actually the old, fully evil, advertising firm "DoubleClick" pretending to be "Google" to make use of the goodwill the "Google" brand name used to have attached to it.
Couldn't be more simplistic. Of course a three trillion dollar Google would behave differently than a 2008 Google with or without DoubleClick.
Even today, I would argue an average sample of Googlers will likely think slightly differently about these things than an average sample of Facebook employees; but of course both will have to respond to influence from the external world: i.e. customer, society, govt.
These days Google fails at even the much simpler "Don't be fscking creepy."
That plus aggressive avoidance of anything resembling customer service and what sounds like an internal environment that may be moving towards cage matches makes it worth avoiding for anything important.
I do think they earnestly tried to swim against the current, but yeah, they always knew where it was taking them. Removing the yellow background behind paid results was the turning point IMO.
> The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users.
- Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, 1998
Such a wise observation from a paper published in the now-defunct journal "Computer Networks and ISDN Systems" after being rejected for the SIGIR conference...
...then BackRub turned Gogool mis-spelled, and the rest is history.
Idk what they've even done that was not profit-motivated. They loss-led newer products in the 2000s just like everyone else, then 2010s started tightening up, then 2020s went to maximizing profit and paying out. That's ok in a way really, they're a corporation after all. But nobody ever took that "don't be evil" slogan seriously unless maybe they were Google employees.
Ok idk if anyone cares but wanted to fix it, 2020s they went to maximizing profit on some things, but are still aggressively spending and growing on other things.
Not working on it yet but planning some projects with the kids:
- A candy classifier with Arduino for Halloween (the goal is to have trick-or-treaters choose their preferred candy and have the machine sift it out automatically)
- A board game based on the idea of fog-of-war, details undecided
- An app to reduce screen time
reply