For $7,300/year, you can come over and cut up my trees. I might even let you use the chainsaw and log splitter. On the topic of the article, I think the genera

For $7,300/year, you can come over and cut up my trees. I might even let you use the chainsaw and log splitter. On the topic of the article, I think the general skill one needs to remain in control of technology is managing context - specifically the ability to keep your own context rather than letting technology define yours for you. An axe is still technology, as is a chainsaw - the key is operating tech so that it serves your own goals, rather than being lured and lulled by it into serving someone else's goals. Taking on more physical tasks helps expand your context (as per the OP). Having a life and goals outside of computers helps. Setting your own criteria that are contrary to the surveillance industry's siren song helps (eg libre software). Having full-sized input/output devices helps. Having many devices for different purposes such that "time wasting mode" is explicit helps. The thing I worry about with abstinence based approaches is that they don't teach the skills necessary to moderate your relationship with technology. So even though your context is larger, when you end up entering the technological context (which society will inevitably force you to do for some aspects of your life), you're still completely unprepared. Looking at Midland's website I see the article's characterization is a bit myopic (there's a picture of a group setting up solar panels, and a picture of someone with a laptop). But I'm speaking more about this general theme of anti-technology that involves romanticizing an axe (seemingly minimum viable technology) rather than say a chainsaw (which gets useful work done without addicting you).