4 ms·

I've found just using ScreenTime on macOS during the time where I need to get stuff done is very useful. It is a bit hidden, because you have to enable "Limit A

I've found just using ScreenTime on macOS during the time where I need to get stuff done is very useful. It is a bit hidden, because you have to enable "Limit Adult Websites", but then you can configure sites you want to block. My list is: ycombinator.com guardian.co.uk theguardian.com nytimes.com spiegel.de Works wonders! It really helps for these little breaks where you automatically go to a site subconsciously. And none of these sites are useful for what I do, except HN sometimes to look up information and pointers about technical topics.

mattmanser 4y ago
Looks like you didn't actually look at the link :)
- auggierose 4y ago
  I actually did. Clicked on it once, looked at it for about 3 seconds, decided it would be a waste of my time to check it out more.
  - nunodonato 4y ago
    Which means you didn't actually understand what it was about, which was the point of the comment ;)
    - auggierose 4y ago
      I don't disagree. Understanding things takes time, and most things are not worth understanding them.
      - gnrl 4y ago
        And then you feel it's not a waste of time to write a comment on an article you took 3sec to understand and skip?
        auggierose 4y ago
        No, as I just wanted to share my anti-procrastination tool. I also like chatting with HNers (some more than others)!
      - KomoD 4y ago
        Spent more time writing these pointless comments
      - jdhdjdbdjdbd 4y ago
- auggierose 4y ago
  > The greatest trick that javascript ever pulled was to convince the latest generation of programmers that it was fast... By the way, JavaScript IS quite fast. I ported some code from Swift to Typescript recently, and its runtime went down from 15 seconds to 2 seconds. It wasn't a 1-1 port because I improved things, so it is not a fair comparison, but I was very positively surprised.
  - mattmanser 4y ago
    > It wasn't a 1-1 port because I improved things Hmm, I think we found the reason....
    - auggierose 4y ago
      I don't think you did! Doing the same improvements in Swift I wouldn't expect an over seven time speedup. I suspect that the time difference has to do with data structures like hashmaps, which in Swift are defacto immutable, and in JavaScript are not.

mattmanser 4y ago

Looks like you didn't actually look at the link :)

auggierose 4y ago
I actually did. Clicked on it once, looked at it for about 3 seconds, decided it would be a waste of my time to check it out more.
- nunodonato 4y ago
  Which means you didn't actually understand what it was about, which was the point of the comment ;)
  - auggierose 4y ago
    I don't disagree. Understanding things takes time, and most things are not worth understanding them.
    - gnrl 4y ago
      And then you feel it's not a waste of time to write a comment on an article you took 3sec to understand and skip?
      - auggierose 4y ago
        No, as I just wanted to share my anti-procrastination tool. I also like chatting with HNers (some more than others)!
    - KomoD 4y ago
      Spent more time writing these pointless comments
    - jdhdjdbdjdbd 4y ago
auggierose 4y ago
> The greatest trick that javascript ever pulled was to convince the latest generation of programmers that it was fast... By the way, JavaScript IS quite fast. I ported some code from Swift to Typescript recently, and its runtime went down from 15 seconds to 2 seconds. It wasn't a 1-1 port because I improved things, so it is not a fair comparison, but I was very positively surprised.
- mattmanser 4y ago
  > It wasn't a 1-1 port because I improved things Hmm, I think we found the reason....
  - auggierose 4y ago
    I don't think you did! Doing the same improvements in Swift I wouldn't expect an over seven time speedup. I suspect that the time difference has to do with data structures like hashmaps, which in Swift are defacto immutable, and in JavaScript are not.