11 ms·

Should We Decouple Technology from Everyday Life?

82 points by StatsAreFun 2y ago

ninetyninenine 2y ago
I don't have a problem with technology. I have a problem with technology trends that are irrational. For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid. I want to decouple stupidity away from technology. That's not possible though. Most places where I worked... just a exploring the code for a couple minutes I encounter something stupid. So it's an impossible endeavor. Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > A smart phone menu is just stupid. You could try Simple X Mobile: https://sxmo.org/ https://sxmo.org/
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Strong disagree on Alexa. Maybe it's the way I talk, but I find voice assistants wildly inconsistent. There's nothing more frustrating than having to repeat yourself to a robot. Maybe AI will improve the situation in the next few years, but I'm not convinced.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Agreed. But repeating your self is an unintentional artifact. when it works it’s beautiful. The phone app is just annoying by design.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Alexa - when it works - can do things that cannot be done better in a different ways. There are times when turning on a light or unlocking a door with a phone is better than the alternatives as well. However there are a lot of times where the 100+ year old way of doing the task is better. Even if voice assistants worked perfectly every time they would still be worse than the switch by the door for controlling the light as you enter/leave. However if you are in bed it may be that despite the current annoyances Alexa is better for controlling the same light.
    - bitwize 2y ago
      But "The Clapper" would do just as well in the case where you are in bed, and is less complex, less expensive, and doesn't send your claps to the cloud.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        which might or might not be good enough. Alexa can turn on other lights, play various types of music, give you the weather... Depending on what you want this might be worth it. Home automation systems (Home assistant, openhab...) are making good progress on local only voice control as well.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        "Clapper set lights to red." I like to set the temperature of the lights to a single color at night so as to not mess up my circadian rhythms. Looks like clapper fits the bill.
        bitwize 2y ago
        God only knows, you might get your wish. They're probably planning a revamp of the Clapper with built-in AI as we speak.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    In this case Siri not Alexa, but it does horribly at interpreting kids' speech. No end of frustration for my 8 year old who wants to play music on our HomePod.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  I can still use light switches to turn off my lights. I can also turn them all on or off at once, change the brightness, color, and temperature. Smart light are great, I'm sorry they confuse you.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    I just tell Alexa or Google home to do set the temperature and change the color. Superior technology less hassle. It has nothing to do with me not being able to set it up. It more has to do with the stupidity of the user interface of pulling my phone out of my fucking pocket, navigating to the app, navigating to the menu and picking the lights and the color and flipping it.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      That depends on what you want to do. If you want to control one specific light in a large room the phone app may be best - try to explain to google which light you mean. Most people don't have such a complex setup that this ever comes into play. However if you have a stage in your house (not a movie theater, a full stage) you would want that level of control. There are probably a few dozen such houses in the US.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    My favorite thing about them is having a "good night" automation. When I get into bed I run it, and it turns off any lights that're still on in my house and locks the doors.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. These aren’t mutually exclusive. I usually press the physical button for my lights but it’s great to be able to pull out my smartphone and turn off lights across the house, or even in the same room if I’m doing something like holding a baby who is falling asleep. Putting the common light controls on easily accessible phone widget screens is really easy these days. I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it. > Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life. And deeply true. Here’s the thing I feel a lot of people think happiness is all that matters. What about truth and reality? My claim is that stupidity being intrinsic to humanity is fucking absolutely true. It has nothing to do with cynicism. I’m baffled at how people don’t even argue the veracity of the claim they just claim it’s “unhappy” as if being delusional is the better alternative. > I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it. I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it.
    - MrJohz 2y ago
      > I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it. I don't think that's so rational — I assumed that you were talking about smartphones in addition to existing switches and other tools, rather than completely replacing them. I have genuinely never heard of such a thing, and if you've had to experience that, then I agree with you that that is an insane concept that doesn't need to exist.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  A good example of this is the glovebox on the Tesla Model 3. There's no button to open it with. Instead you have to press a button on the steering wheel to activate Google Assistant, then say "open glovebox" in a clear voice so it doesn't misunderstand, then wait a second or two, and then finally the glovebox opens. It bothers us to no end.
  - saurik 2y ago
    I mean, the point that a physical button (even if it were backed by software, due to the PIN code lock feature) would be appreciated certainly resonates, but it's at least somewhat better than that ;P... open the menu--which probably defaults to Controls; but, if not, click Controls--and then there's a giant Glovebox button.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      So three taps instead of one button. Exactly the problem with many other Tesla's controls, like defogging, for example. (At least they did have the sense to put control buttons on the steering wheel to which they have added some functionality.) Tesla does get a lot of little things right -- auto sensing for seat and steering wheel heating, auto-setting seats to your profile as you enter the car based on your phone, automatically setting/unsetting the emergency break when you park, auto locking the doors when you leave, etc. But its "thou shalt not have physical buttons" dogma is annoying. The other thing I miss is the absence of a HUD right in front of you. Again, feels like dogma rather than good design. Other brands (BMW, Polestar, etc.) succeed in that regard (my favorite being the BMW where it projects the HUD onto the bottom of the windshield right where it doesn't obstruct the view but is extremely convenient. I don't dislike the Tesla but even if Elon wasn't going full fascist, I'd pick another brand next time.
  - canadaduane 2y ago
    Incredible. This sounds like an ideological decision rather than a design decision. > In The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman discusses how poorly designed doors—often called "Norman doors"--fail to communicate whether they should be pushed or pulled. A well-designed door should naturally indicate how it operates through affordances (such as a push plate vs. a pull handle) and signifiers (like labels or arrows). This concept is part of a broader discussion on human-centered design and usability. At a minimum, a poorly designed door can be opened!
- psadauskas 2y ago
  I wouldn't mind it so much, if it benefited me in any way. Phones are listening all the time, Google and Apply know where I am constantly, they all have access to all my credit card purchases. Why can't I ask arbitrary questions I know they have the data to answer. Some examples of things I feel like should be trivial: > Hey Google, when's the last time I bought gas for my truck? What did I pay, and how many MPG did I get? > Hey Siri, the other day at the bar, my friend was telling me about a TV show he recommended I watch. What was the name of the show again? What service streams it? Play the trailer on the living room TV. Instead, they just harvest all the data, sell it to whoever they feel like, just so everyone can show me intrusive adds for shit I don't care about.
- MrJohz 2y ago
  > For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid. I'm not sure that's true. A physical button only works if I'm near that button. Alexa only works if I'm near a microphone (and comfortable with that microphone). Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful. That's not to say a button isn't also useful - it's usually more convenient if I'm already next to that button, which makes it great for turning room lights on and off if I'm moving from room to room. But if I'm on the sofa and I want to dim the lights without having to get up, the smartphone, for me, seems like the most practical choice. I suspect what seems like stupidity to you may often be people catering to those with different desires and needs. Just because a smartphone isn't a useful way of controlling lights for you, doesn't mean that it's a stupid design decision for everyone.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    >Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful. Sure. Now how long does it take you? Take that phone out of your pocket, unlock it, open the lights app, skip past whatever update/ad/welcome screen, find the correct light button and press it. Anything on a smartphone takes substantially longer than a physical button. Not to mention that the physical button tends to be more reliable at doing what it's supposed to. People still buy alarm clocks and then put their phone next to it at night.
    - kemayo 2y ago
      > Now how long does it take you? Rather less time than it takes you, apparently. My process is: pull phone from pocket, swipe down, tap button. I don't need to unlock it as a discrete step because it did that automatically when it saw my face. I use the built-in smart-home management, so all the controls are available in the system-level control center widget -- which doesn't have any sort of junky updates / ads / welcomes. It's certainly slower than pressing a physical button if I'm standing next to one. But it's genuinely faster than standing up and walking over to press said button.
    - the_snooze 2y ago
ryandrake 2y ago
Maybe this is a privileged outlook, but I've decided that each piece of technology needs to earn its place in my life, and I'm going to use it deliberately for a specific purpose, if I deem it to be worthy. The smartphone has not earned it yet. Im not going to live in an apartment that requires a smartphone to get into the door. That may involve me making sacrifices, I don't care. You have to draw a line somewhere. If parking somewhere requires an app, or eating at a restaurant requires a QR code, I'm just going to go somewhere else. I'm not going to chain myself to a smartphone just because society is addicted. Just like I didn't take up smoking back when everyone around me smoked. And when I do need to use my phone, I pick it up, use it for a purpose, and then put it down. No idle, passive scrolling allowed. No notifications. DND mode 24/7. It is not allowed to interrupt me with a call or a message. When I stop work, the phone goes in a drawer until tomorrow. When I go on vacation, the phone gets packed deep in the emergency baggie, or just not brought at all. This autonomy requires a little sacrifice, and stings a little if you're not used to it. But, ultimately I think it's better for my health, both physical and mental.
- busterarm 2y ago
  Great lessons to be learned from the Amish. This is basically what they do, just the decision is made as a community rather than per individual.
- alexalx666 2y ago
  yes we need to play Apple's iPad from machine press ad in reverse
  - suobset 2y ago
    That ad was a peak example of good intention and bad execution. Absolute no one in the iPad Pro's demographic (artists, musicians, photographers, etc) are ever going to appreciate such destruction. I remember seeing a version of the ad where someone just reversed the whole thing, and it instantly felt much better.
- moooo99 2y ago
  > If parking somewhere requires an app, or eating at a restaurant requires a QR code, I'm just going to go somewhere else. I always hated this kind of technology use. I love technology when it is used to do things that were not possible before or hard to accomplish. I hate QR codes, but even they can be handy at times (without the QR code I would have never encountered the DB ICE Portal for example). The examples you brought up are small but ubiquitous enough to be extremely annoying. Instead of getting a few printed menus on the table, everybody on the table spends 10 minutes being glued to their phones, zooming and scrolling around to make sense of the offer and select something. Instead of just being able to pull a parking ticket at a meter I have to figure out which of the damn apps I have to use to pay for my parking. And with scammers almost always being smarter then the service providers, I now also have to make sure that I don't fall for "Quishing" scams [1] (honestly no clue if that is as thing elsewhere) [1]: German: https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/phishingradar/quishing-falsche-qrcodes-in-mails-briefen-oepnv-und-strassenverkehr-98612 https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/phis...
booleandilemma 2y ago
It looks like a better title for this article would be "Should We Decouple Phones from Everyday Life?" And my answer to that is: absolutely.
lasermike026 2y ago
I'm intrigued. We should think about this more.
yoyohello13 2y ago
I recently won a water bottle in a raffle. It looked nice, stainless steel, big (probably 2 liters). When I unwrapped it, I saw a QR code that said "Instructions." Weird, why would I need instructions for a water bottle? Then I saw a large rubber plug in the bottom. I realized with horror, it's a bluetooth enabled heating/cooling element controlled by an app I'm supposed to download. The heating element is huge, takes up half the volume of the bottle. So now this water bottle: 1. Needs power. 2. Needs an app. 3. Has less water capacity. All so it can just do the same thing as a normal insulated bottle and some ice cubes.
- ConfusedDog 2y ago
  Probably a heating element to reheat the coffee or tea. I have recently considered need something like a reheating lunchbox so I don't have to use the office microwave which is always gross. I just carry a huge Zojirushi insulted water bottle for my hot water need. I don't want to lose any water capacity...
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > Probably a heating element to reheat the coffee or tea. People reheating coffee and tea should be put to jail
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    Why not just clean the microwave? Your coworkers would probably appreciate it.
    - sejje 2y ago
      That's gotta be someone else's job! --everyone
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        I mean yeah but if you clean it, they won't think that. And if you mention you cleaned it, they'd be more inclined to do it in the future. And, worse case scenario, you spend like 5 minutes occasionally doing it and now have access to a clean microwave, without needing to buy more e-waste and encouraging the production of cheap, stupid things like a water bottle with a heater in it.
bell-cot 2y ago
> ...visit a friend in Washington DC ... an apartment complex could never be occupied by an Orthodox Jew like me (since I cannot use my phone on Shabbat and the holidays), because at every turn the most essential tasks are accomplished with a smartphone. IANAL, but that sounds like some sort of lawsuit and/or PR disaster just waiting to happen.
- danielbln 2y ago
  While I agree with the general sentiment of over-use of smartphones and useless apps, someone who won't use their phone because someone scribbled something about not doing work on certain days on some parchment six thousand years ago is not someone we should cater to. To each their own delusions.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    Additionally, varying interpretations would say you shouldn't use the lights, elevators, etc, so modern living in any manner may be incompatible with orthodoxy.
    - hidroto 2y ago
      there are workarounds for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator
    - buildsjets 2y ago
      Many modern appliances come with a "Sabbath Mode" which allows observant users to schedule their operation in advance of the Sabbath. For example, many ovens can be pre-programmed to turn on before the Sabbath and turn off sometime during the Sabbath, as well disable their automatic door-lights, to allow the users to comply with the ancient restriction of not starting a fire on the Sabbath. Similarly, observant users may use artificial light, they just may not turn it on or off. So there are Sabbath lamps where the bulb remains lit but a shade can be lowered to block out the light. Are these modern cheats to allow observant users to benefit from the convenience of technology while ignoring the tenets of their faith? I'm no reliogiologist, but if these are cheats, they are ancient ones, not modern ones. For example in past times, people would cook before the sabbath then leave the food on a warm hearth with insulation for later consumption.
aeblyve 2y ago
I feel that this is a basically reactionary perspective, despite the author's assertion that it is not. Doomscrolling, like drug addiction, is largely the product of the holistic social-biological environment of the actor. People generally do not intentionally throw away stimulating, happy, healthy lives to become destitute drug addicts, and a comparison of opening a parking payment application to being offered alcohol seems hyperbolic. Smartphones are in many ways materially superior to carrying stacks of paper, just as driving a car is usually materially superior to horse-drawn carriage. It is materially inappropriate to allow the Choice of horse-drawn carriage on the interstate highways. These technologies do require increased infrastructure and investment (that interstate), perhaps, but this is the way the human body itself is laid out: a network of interdependent, largely centralized organs. Compare to a simpler life form like a yeast. Less "infrastructure", but also less going on. I do agree with some of the sentiment of the author. It is not very libertarian of me, but in my opinion, some increased top-down regulation of social networks might be necessary, i.e., KYC. The ability to hide behind aliases to publish whatever you want without any "skin in the game" seems to have decreased the level of coherence overall and permitted for neurotic anti-reality perspectives to proliferate. If government regulation of behavior and chemicals is appropriate, government regulation of garbage information probably is as well.
- getnormality 2y ago
  > Doomscrolling, like drug addiction, is largely the product of the holistic social-biological environment of the actor. Drug addiction is also a product of the availability of drugs. China has much less problems with opioid overdose than America because they learned their lesson in the 19th century.
  - aeblyve 2y ago
    Opium use in China was largely ended because of the Communist revolution there in the 20th century, and its policies on the matter. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/
    - 2y ago
bdcravens 2y ago
Being old enough to straddle the manual and the automated world (48 this year), but absolutely loving technology (so I feel I haven't entered my "get off my lawn" era yet), I find myself looking for ways to augment, not replace. Of course, that's as much working in technology for 20+ years (and knowing how it's not magic and how things can fail) as much as it's good sense lol.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > I find myself looking for ways to augment, not replace. This is how most people operate and prefer their products (Learned from years in the smarthome industry). You can find simple products where all the controls are inexplicably moved into a phone and they’re generally not well liked. It makes sense for something that augments the phone (e.g. playing music through Sonos) but it doesn’t make sense when you have to use your phone to do things that should have been controls on the device. The latter group is universally despised and products like that never do well. There’s a growing technology backlash where some people pretend like every smart device is dumb and useless, but they’re almost always fixated on that group of devices that doesn’t do well. They ignore the devices that people actually like because those would invalidate their stance that technology integrations are bad.
curtisszmania 2y ago
[dead]
iFire 2y ago
I need to use fire (technology) in my life or I'll die in the cold.
- dhosek 2y ago
  In the opening, the author of the article talks about how he couldn’t live in the apartment building with all the smart-phone requirements because as an Orthodox Jew, he can’t use a smartphone on the sabbath, the reason for this being that the Orthodox ruling is that turning electrical devices on/off is a violation of the Sabbath ban on making fire,¹ which makes your comment a bit amusing. That said, I think that there’s a lot to be said for choosing low-tech options. I have the overhead light in my living room controlled by a cheap $5 mechanical timer not unlike what was available when I was a kid in the 70s. It’s near an expensive high tech digital picture frame. I like going for the lowest tech option that’s feasible. ⸻ 1. There’s some discussion of this subject in Richard Feynman’s Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman which I won’t get into here.
eulerian 2y ago
The cynic in me finds it hypocritical for this article to be published on the internet (major technological feat).
- eesmith 2y ago
  The author saying people should be able make their own choice, and specifically "not advocating a Burkean return to the past". How is publishing this on the internet at all hypocritical?
  - eulerian 2y ago
    > people should be able make their own choice Is anyone currently being forced to use any technology?
    - eesmith 2y ago
      I assume you are not suggesting that so long as it's possible to choose to be a hermit in the deep woods, then your technology use is all optional. In any case, stone tools are technology. Making fire requires technology. I'll set aside people who need technology to live (clothes are technology, but so is a CPAP machine). I'll set aside how places are increasingly going cash free (cash is technology, and credit cards are more advanced technology, and phone payment requires even more technology). Take my gym. Last year they switched to QR phone entry. The QR code changes every few seconds, so you can't print out the code and take it in. The handful of people without a smartphone, like me, got an exception to use an RFID card. However, those who have a smartphone were not allowed to use an RFID card, even those complaining at the front desk, angry because they did not want to bring their phone with them to the gym. It's true they are not forced to go to the gym, though note that most other gyms around here have also switched to smartphone entry, and I chose this gym specifically because they are the only one offering a specific style of group training that I want. Or, take some of the examples at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488 where people can't pay for parking because they need a smartphone app which requires not just iPhone/Android, but is only available from the local country's app store - rather difficult for foreign visitors. It's true they are not forced to park there. They can find somewhere else and walk or take the bus. Or, take the local college. They are a Microsoft shop. You need 2FA via smartphone app to log into their machines, access email, and the like. Signs and other info about upcoming events require a QR-code for info like time and place. People are not forced to use a smartphone, since they have a choice to not go to college, or find one of the decreasing number of schools which don't expect everyone to have a smartphone. Or, a friend of mine lives in a city with no good mass transit options or bike options. Those who don't have a car use app-based taxi services. She knows a couple of people who choose to not have a smartphone, so they are limited to places they can walk. In all cases there is still a choice, but it becomes increasingly Hobson's choice - and we've decided that living as a hermit, even metaphorically, is not what you mean by an alternative to not being forced, right?
brunospars 2y ago
We've had technology for 150 years now and much has been positive. Consumers could be encouraged to favor quality , responsiveness & longevity . Cars & appliances have regressed into unreliable, overstimulated and unpresonsive disasters. Much of this is how they are marketed and sold. Cars seem flashy until you own it for a few months . It's up to consumers to make a choice.
- eesmith 2y ago
  You can only make a choice if there is a choice. The author argues for "a restoration of choice: a campaign to ensure analogue alternatives to digital tools." If you had a viable choice besides a car (like a combination of mass transit, walking, and bike), would you choose it? But of course most people in the US cannot make that choice because where they live was, over the last century, designed around cars, and often eliminated choices which were present. Had those choices remained, there would be more pressure on car manufacturers to build better cars. Consumers alone aren't going to transform cities into a walkable place.
subjectsigma 2y ago
I think the interface is key. Typing is a different interface than writing. I’ve heard writing things down improves your recall much better than writing, and I’ve found this to be true. But digital text is just so inherently useful. What I want is notebook that looks and acts exactly like a notebook but I can later edit it on a computer, search it, sync it, etc. Yes, I know remarkable and other products exist, but they really don’t act exactly like a notebook. You can’t flip through the pages or dog-ear them. You can’t just hand a reMarkable off to someone to borrow or keep, it’s a $700 investment that’s tied to your online accounts. It has a battery life, and you need to have WiFi around to sync. In a truly perfect world I would just be able to lay my $5 paper notebook infused with nanobots or other such future magic onto a smart surface on my desk and my computer would automatically read the contents. Obviously we are a long way off, if it’s even possible to make something like that practically, but that’s the kind of interfaces I think we should work towards - computing so efficient and subtle you don’t realize it’s digital. I kind of hated the movie Her but I thought the scene where the main character is designing something by just sitting down at his desk and talking to the computer conversationally was really cool. We can probably get close-ish in the next 10 years with all this fancy AI.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
I'm just gonna throw into this thread that when I bought a car, I deliberately demanded a model with a physical, metal key. Software is for things that are supposed to be flexible but don't really need to be reliable. For things meant to be reliable but not necessarily flexible or changeable, get hardware. And if someone's giving you software where hardware belongs, ask what flexibility they're getting out of it.
blueyes 2y ago
The thing is we can't wholly give up our devices and apps, because so many peoples' professional and social lives depend on them. So we have to manage it. It's more like a food addiction than alcohol, since alcohol, you can live without. I wrote about this here. https://vonnik.substack.com/p/how-to-take-your-brain-back https://vonnik.substack.com/p/how-to-take-your-brain-back
godelski 2y ago
The problem I see is that technology is not made for human life, it is made for money. Money was supposed to be the proxy, not the whole enchilada. There's so much low hanging fruit that will never get fixed because it has low monetary value but would help daily life. It's a lot of the little things that add up and compound. But you can't nickel and dime your way up because it's small things in big controlled platforms. I'll give an example. At my university each term we do a "survey" to communicate what we want to teach. It has such brilliant questions as "for what academic year" that has a single option and "what you previously taught". There is no caching, so you answer these questions over and over. Or how about every time I import a calendar I get a new copy of a holiday calendar and this doesn't automatically merge. There's a million things like these that are small but take tons time and add frustration. They are small but they add up and combine. A million things that take 0.1s but you do every day will still take up your entire day. It just seems we get more and more of this while we're trying to make the next big thing but can never do when we think one quarter at a time
HocusLocus 2y ago
I just bought a car battery charger, a soldering station (not the crazy thing with the RTOS and the apps, standalone and basic), a spare charging cable for my FLIP-PHONE, an Arduino, some MOSFETs and a capacitor/resistor assortments. It's too late for me to decouple technology from everyday life. Best go on without me. I wish you all luck.

82 points by StatsAreFun 2y ago

I don't have a problem with technology. I have a problem with technology trends that are irrational. For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid. I want to decouple stupidity away from technology. That's not possible though. Most places where I worked... just a exploring the code for a couple minutes I encounter something stupid. So it's an impossible endeavor. Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology.

fsflover 2y ago
> A smart phone menu is just stupid. You could try Simple X Mobile: https://sxmo.org/ https://sxmo.org/
AlexandrB 2y ago
Strong disagree on Alexa. Maybe it's the way I talk, but I find voice assistants wildly inconsistent. There's nothing more frustrating than having to repeat yourself to a robot. Maybe AI will improve the situation in the next few years, but I'm not convinced.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Agreed. But repeating your self is an unintentional artifact. when it works it’s beautiful. The phone app is just annoying by design.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Alexa - when it works - can do things that cannot be done better in a different ways. There are times when turning on a light or unlocking a door with a phone is better than the alternatives as well. However there are a lot of times where the 100+ year old way of doing the task is better. Even if voice assistants worked perfectly every time they would still be worse than the switch by the door for controlling the light as you enter/leave. However if you are in bed it may be that despite the current annoyances Alexa is better for controlling the same light.
  - bitwize 2y ago
    But "The Clapper" would do just as well in the case where you are in bed, and is less complex, less expensive, and doesn't send your claps to the cloud.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      which might or might not be good enough. Alexa can turn on other lights, play various types of music, give you the weather... Depending on what you want this might be worth it. Home automation systems (Home assistant, openhab...) are making good progress on local only voice control as well.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      "Clapper set lights to red." I like to set the temperature of the lights to a single color at night so as to not mess up my circadian rhythms. Looks like clapper fits the bill.
      - bitwize 2y ago
        God only knows, you might get your wish. They're probably planning a revamp of the Clapper with built-in AI as we speak.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  In this case Siri not Alexa, but it does horribly at interpreting kids' speech. No end of frustration for my 8 year old who wants to play music on our HomePod.
bongodongobob 2y ago
I can still use light switches to turn off my lights. I can also turn them all on or off at once, change the brightness, color, and temperature. Smart light are great, I'm sorry they confuse you.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  I just tell Alexa or Google home to do set the temperature and change the color. Superior technology less hassle. It has nothing to do with me not being able to set it up. It more has to do with the stupidity of the user interface of pulling my phone out of my fucking pocket, navigating to the app, navigating to the menu and picking the lights and the color and flipping it.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    That depends on what you want to do. If you want to control one specific light in a large room the phone app may be best - try to explain to google which light you mean. Most people don't have such a complex setup that this ever comes into play. However if you have a stage in your house (not a movie theater, a full stage) you would want that level of control. There are probably a few dozen such houses in the US.
- kemayo 2y ago
  My favorite thing about them is having a "good night" automation. When I get into bed I run it, and it turns off any lights that're still on in my house and locks the doors.
Aurornis 2y ago
> For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. These aren’t mutually exclusive. I usually press the physical button for my lights but it’s great to be able to pull out my smartphone and turn off lights across the house, or even in the same room if I’m doing something like holding a baby who is falling asleep. Putting the common light controls on easily accessible phone widget screens is really easy these days. I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it. > Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  >This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life. And deeply true. Here’s the thing I feel a lot of people think happiness is all that matters. What about truth and reality? My claim is that stupidity being intrinsic to humanity is fucking absolutely true. It has nothing to do with cynicism. I’m baffled at how people don’t even argue the veracity of the claim they just claim it’s “unhappy” as if being delusional is the better alternative. > I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it. I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it.
  - MrJohz 2y ago
    > I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it. I don't think that's so rational — I assumed that you were talking about smartphones in addition to existing switches and other tools, rather than completely replacing them. I have genuinely never heard of such a thing, and if you've had to experience that, then I agree with you that that is an insane concept that doesn't need to exist.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
A good example of this is the glovebox on the Tesla Model 3. There's no button to open it with. Instead you have to press a button on the steering wheel to activate Google Assistant, then say "open glovebox" in a clear voice so it doesn't misunderstand, then wait a second or two, and then finally the glovebox opens. It bothers us to no end.
- saurik 2y ago
  I mean, the point that a physical button (even if it were backed by software, due to the PIN code lock feature) would be appreciated certainly resonates, but it's at least somewhat better than that ;P... open the menu--which probably defaults to Controls; but, if not, click Controls--and then there's a giant Glovebox button.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    So three taps instead of one button. Exactly the problem with many other Tesla's controls, like defogging, for example. (At least they did have the sense to put control buttons on the steering wheel to which they have added some functionality.) Tesla does get a lot of little things right -- auto sensing for seat and steering wheel heating, auto-setting seats to your profile as you enter the car based on your phone, automatically setting/unsetting the emergency break when you park, auto locking the doors when you leave, etc. But its "thou shalt not have physical buttons" dogma is annoying. The other thing I miss is the absence of a HUD right in front of you. Again, feels like dogma rather than good design. Other brands (BMW, Polestar, etc.) succeed in that regard (my favorite being the BMW where it projects the HUD onto the bottom of the windshield right where it doesn't obstruct the view but is extremely convenient. I don't dislike the Tesla but even if Elon wasn't going full fascist, I'd pick another brand next time.
- canadaduane 2y ago
  Incredible. This sounds like an ideological decision rather than a design decision. > In The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman discusses how poorly designed doors—often called "Norman doors"--fail to communicate whether they should be pushed or pulled. A well-designed door should naturally indicate how it operates through affordances (such as a push plate vs. a pull handle) and signifiers (like labels or arrows). This concept is part of a broader discussion on human-centered design and usability. At a minimum, a poorly designed door can be opened!
psadauskas 2y ago
I wouldn't mind it so much, if it benefited me in any way. Phones are listening all the time, Google and Apply know where I am constantly, they all have access to all my credit card purchases. Why can't I ask arbitrary questions I know they have the data to answer. Some examples of things I feel like should be trivial: > Hey Google, when's the last time I bought gas for my truck? What did I pay, and how many MPG did I get? > Hey Siri, the other day at the bar, my friend was telling me about a TV show he recommended I watch. What was the name of the show again? What service streams it? Play the trailer on the living room TV. Instead, they just harvest all the data, sell it to whoever they feel like, just so everyone can show me intrusive adds for shit I don't care about.
MrJohz 2y ago
> For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid. I'm not sure that's true. A physical button only works if I'm near that button. Alexa only works if I'm near a microphone (and comfortable with that microphone). Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful. That's not to say a button isn't also useful - it's usually more convenient if I'm already next to that button, which makes it great for turning room lights on and off if I'm moving from room to room. But if I'm on the sofa and I want to dim the lights without having to get up, the smartphone, for me, seems like the most practical choice. I suspect what seems like stupidity to you may often be people catering to those with different desires and needs. Just because a smartphone isn't a useful way of controlling lights for you, doesn't mean that it's a stupid design decision for everyone.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  >Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful. Sure. Now how long does it take you? Take that phone out of your pocket, unlock it, open the lights app, skip past whatever update/ad/welcome screen, find the correct light button and press it. Anything on a smartphone takes substantially longer than a physical button. Not to mention that the physical button tends to be more reliable at doing what it's supposed to. People still buy alarm clocks and then put their phone next to it at night.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    > Now how long does it take you? Rather less time than it takes you, apparently. My process is: pull phone from pocket, swipe down, tap button. I don't need to unlock it as a discrete step because it did that automatically when it saw my face. I use the built-in smart-home management, so all the controls are available in the system-level control center widget -- which doesn't have any sort of junky updates / ads / welcomes. It's certainly slower than pressing a physical button if I'm standing next to one. But it's genuinely faster than standing up and walking over to press said button.
  - the_snooze 2y ago

ryandrake 2y ago

Maybe this is a privileged outlook, but I've decided that each piece of technology needs to earn its place in my life, and I'm going to use it deliberately for a specific purpose, if I deem it to be worthy. The smartphone has not earned it yet. Im not going to live in an apartment that requires a smartphone to get into the door. That may involve me making sacrifices, I don't care. You have to draw a line somewhere. If parking somewhere requires an app, or eating at a restaurant requires a QR code, I'm just going to go somewhere else. I'm not going to chain myself to a smartphone just because society is addicted. Just like I didn't take up smoking back when everyone around me smoked. And when I do need to use my phone, I pick it up, use it for a purpose, and then put it down. No idle, passive scrolling allowed. No notifications. DND mode 24/7. It is not allowed to interrupt me with a call or a message. When I stop work, the phone goes in a drawer until tomorrow. When I go on vacation, the phone gets packed deep in the emergency baggie, or just not brought at all. This autonomy requires a little sacrifice, and stings a little if you're not used to it. But, ultimately I think it's better for my health, both physical and mental.

busterarm 2y ago
Great lessons to be learned from the Amish. This is basically what they do, just the decision is made as a community rather than per individual.
alexalx666 2y ago
yes we need to play Apple's iPad from machine press ad in reverse
- suobset 2y ago
  That ad was a peak example of good intention and bad execution. Absolute no one in the iPad Pro's demographic (artists, musicians, photographers, etc) are ever going to appreciate such destruction. I remember seeing a version of the ad where someone just reversed the whole thing, and it instantly felt much better.
moooo99 2y ago
> If parking somewhere requires an app, or eating at a restaurant requires a QR code, I'm just going to go somewhere else. I always hated this kind of technology use. I love technology when it is used to do things that were not possible before or hard to accomplish. I hate QR codes, but even they can be handy at times (without the QR code I would have never encountered the DB ICE Portal for example). The examples you brought up are small but ubiquitous enough to be extremely annoying. Instead of getting a few printed menus on the table, everybody on the table spends 10 minutes being glued to their phones, zooming and scrolling around to make sense of the offer and select something. Instead of just being able to pull a parking ticket at a meter I have to figure out which of the damn apps I have to use to pay for my parking. And with scammers almost always being smarter then the service providers, I now also have to make sure that I don't fall for "Quishing" scams [1] (honestly no clue if that is as thing elsewhere) [1]: German: https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/phishingradar/quishing-falsche-qrcodes-in-mails-briefen-oepnv-und-strassenverkehr-98612 https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/digitale-welt/phis...

booleandilemma 2y ago

It looks like a better title for this article would be "Should We Decouple Phones from Everyday Life?" And my answer to that is: absolutely.

lasermike026 2y ago

I'm intrigued. We should think about this more.

yoyohello13 2y ago

I recently won a water bottle in a raffle. It looked nice, stainless steel, big (probably 2 liters). When I unwrapped it, I saw a QR code that said "Instructions." Weird, why would I need instructions for a water bottle? Then I saw a large rubber plug in the bottom. I realized with horror, it's a bluetooth enabled heating/cooling element controlled by an app I'm supposed to download. The heating element is huge, takes up half the volume of the bottle. So now this water bottle: 1. Needs power. 2. Needs an app. 3. Has less water capacity. All so it can just do the same thing as a normal insulated bottle and some ice cubes.

ConfusedDog 2y ago
Probably a heating element to reheat the coffee or tea. I have recently considered need something like a reheating lunchbox so I don't have to use the office microwave which is always gross. I just carry a huge Zojirushi insulted water bottle for my hot water need. I don't want to lose any water capacity...
- lm28469 2y ago
  > Probably a heating element to reheat the coffee or tea. People reheating coffee and tea should be put to jail
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  Why not just clean the microwave? Your coworkers would probably appreciate it.
  - sejje 2y ago
    That's gotta be someone else's job! --everyone
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      I mean yeah but if you clean it, they won't think that. And if you mention you cleaned it, they'd be more inclined to do it in the future. And, worse case scenario, you spend like 5 minutes occasionally doing it and now have access to a clean microwave, without needing to buy more e-waste and encouraging the production of cheap, stupid things like a water bottle with a heater in it.

bell-cot 2y ago

> ...visit a friend in Washington DC ... an apartment complex could never be occupied by an Orthodox Jew like me (since I cannot use my phone on Shabbat and the holidays), because at every turn the most essential tasks are accomplished with a smartphone. IANAL, but that sounds like some sort of lawsuit and/or PR disaster just waiting to happen.

danielbln 2y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment of over-use of smartphones and useless apps, someone who won't use their phone because someone scribbled something about not doing work on certain days on some parchment six thousand years ago is not someone we should cater to. To each their own delusions.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  Additionally, varying interpretations would say you shouldn't use the lights, elevators, etc, so modern living in any manner may be incompatible with orthodoxy.
  - hidroto 2y ago
    there are workarounds for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator
  - buildsjets 2y ago
    Many modern appliances come with a "Sabbath Mode" which allows observant users to schedule their operation in advance of the Sabbath. For example, many ovens can be pre-programmed to turn on before the Sabbath and turn off sometime during the Sabbath, as well disable their automatic door-lights, to allow the users to comply with the ancient restriction of not starting a fire on the Sabbath. Similarly, observant users may use artificial light, they just may not turn it on or off. So there are Sabbath lamps where the bulb remains lit but a shade can be lowered to block out the light. Are these modern cheats to allow observant users to benefit from the convenience of technology while ignoring the tenets of their faith? I'm no reliogiologist, but if these are cheats, they are ancient ones, not modern ones. For example in past times, people would cook before the sabbath then leave the food on a warm hearth with insulation for later consumption.

aeblyve 2y ago

I feel that this is a basically reactionary perspective, despite the author's assertion that it is not. Doomscrolling, like drug addiction, is largely the product of the holistic social-biological environment of the actor. People generally do not intentionally throw away stimulating, happy, healthy lives to become destitute drug addicts, and a comparison of opening a parking payment application to being offered alcohol seems hyperbolic. Smartphones are in many ways materially superior to carrying stacks of paper, just as driving a car is usually materially superior to horse-drawn carriage. It is materially inappropriate to allow the Choice of horse-drawn carriage on the interstate highways. These technologies do require increased infrastructure and investment (that interstate), perhaps, but this is the way the human body itself is laid out: a network of interdependent, largely centralized organs. Compare to a simpler life form like a yeast. Less "infrastructure", but also less going on. I do agree with some of the sentiment of the author. It is not very libertarian of me, but in my opinion, some increased top-down regulation of social networks might be necessary, i.e., KYC. The ability to hide behind aliases to publish whatever you want without any "skin in the game" seems to have decreased the level of coherence overall and permitted for neurotic anti-reality perspectives to proliferate. If government regulation of behavior and chemicals is appropriate, government regulation of garbage information probably is as well.

getnormality 2y ago
> Doomscrolling, like drug addiction, is largely the product of the holistic social-biological environment of the actor. Drug addiction is also a product of the availability of drugs. China has much less problems with opioid overdose than America because they learned their lesson in the 19th century.
- aeblyve 2y ago
  Opium use in China was largely ended because of the Communist revolution there in the 20th century, and its policies on the matter. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347925/
  - 2y ago

bdcravens 2y ago

Being old enough to straddle the manual and the automated world (48 this year), but absolutely loving technology (so I feel I haven't entered my "get off my lawn" era yet), I find myself looking for ways to augment, not replace. Of course, that's as much working in technology for 20+ years (and knowing how it's not magic and how things can fail) as much as it's good sense lol.

Aurornis 2y ago
> I find myself looking for ways to augment, not replace. This is how most people operate and prefer their products (Learned from years in the smarthome industry). You can find simple products where all the controls are inexplicably moved into a phone and they’re generally not well liked. It makes sense for something that augments the phone (e.g. playing music through Sonos) but it doesn’t make sense when you have to use your phone to do things that should have been controls on the device. The latter group is universally despised and products like that never do well. There’s a growing technology backlash where some people pretend like every smart device is dumb and useless, but they’re almost always fixated on that group of devices that doesn’t do well. They ignore the devices that people actually like because those would invalidate their stance that technology integrations are bad.

curtisszmania 2y ago

[dead]

iFire 2y ago

I need to use fire (technology) in my life or I'll die in the cold.

dhosek 2y ago
In the opening, the author of the article talks about how he couldn’t live in the apartment building with all the smart-phone requirements because as an Orthodox Jew, he can’t use a smartphone on the sabbath, the reason for this being that the Orthodox ruling is that turning electrical devices on/off is a violation of the Sabbath ban on making fire,¹ which makes your comment a bit amusing. That said, I think that there’s a lot to be said for choosing low-tech options. I have the overhead light in my living room controlled by a cheap $5 mechanical timer not unlike what was available when I was a kid in the 70s. It’s near an expensive high tech digital picture frame. I like going for the lowest tech option that’s feasible. ⸻ 1. There’s some discussion of this subject in Richard Feynman’s Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman which I won’t get into here.

eulerian 2y ago

The cynic in me finds it hypocritical for this article to be published on the internet (major technological feat).

eesmith 2y ago
The author saying people should be able make their own choice, and specifically "not advocating a Burkean return to the past". How is publishing this on the internet at all hypocritical?
- eulerian 2y ago
  > people should be able make their own choice Is anyone currently being forced to use any technology?
  - eesmith 2y ago
    I assume you are not suggesting that so long as it's possible to choose to be a hermit in the deep woods, then your technology use is all optional. In any case, stone tools are technology. Making fire requires technology. I'll set aside people who need technology to live (clothes are technology, but so is a CPAP machine). I'll set aside how places are increasingly going cash free (cash is technology, and credit cards are more advanced technology, and phone payment requires even more technology). Take my gym. Last year they switched to QR phone entry. The QR code changes every few seconds, so you can't print out the code and take it in. The handful of people without a smartphone, like me, got an exception to use an RFID card. However, those who have a smartphone were not allowed to use an RFID card, even those complaining at the front desk, angry because they did not want to bring their phone with them to the gym. It's true they are not forced to go to the gym, though note that most other gyms around here have also switched to smartphone entry, and I chose this gym specifically because they are the only one offering a specific style of group training that I want. Or, take some of the examples at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488 where people can't pay for parking because they need a smartphone app which requires not just iPhone/Android, but is only available from the local country's app store - rather difficult for foreign visitors. It's true they are not forced to park there. They can find somewhere else and walk or take the bus. Or, take the local college. They are a Microsoft shop. You need 2FA via smartphone app to log into their machines, access email, and the like. Signs and other info about upcoming events require a QR-code for info like time and place. People are not forced to use a smartphone, since they have a choice to not go to college, or find one of the decreasing number of schools which don't expect everyone to have a smartphone. Or, a friend of mine lives in a city with no good mass transit options or bike options. Those who don't have a car use app-based taxi services. She knows a couple of people who choose to not have a smartphone, so they are limited to places they can walk. In all cases there is still a choice, but it becomes increasingly Hobson's choice - and we've decided that living as a hermit, even metaphorically, is not what you mean by an alternative to not being forced, right?

brunospars 2y ago

We've had technology for 150 years now and much has been positive. Consumers could be encouraged to favor quality , responsiveness & longevity . Cars & appliances have regressed into unreliable, overstimulated and unpresonsive disasters. Much of this is how they are marketed and sold. Cars seem flashy until you own it for a few months . It's up to consumers to make a choice.

eesmith 2y ago
You can only make a choice if there is a choice. The author argues for "a restoration of choice: a campaign to ensure analogue alternatives to digital tools." If you had a viable choice besides a car (like a combination of mass transit, walking, and bike), would you choose it? But of course most people in the US cannot make that choice because where they live was, over the last century, designed around cars, and often eliminated choices which were present. Had those choices remained, there would be more pressure on car manufacturers to build better cars. Consumers alone aren't going to transform cities into a walkable place.

subjectsigma 2y ago

I think the interface is key. Typing is a different interface than writing. I’ve heard writing things down improves your recall much better than writing, and I’ve found this to be true. But digital text is just so inherently useful. What I want is notebook that looks and acts exactly like a notebook but I can later edit it on a computer, search it, sync it, etc. Yes, I know remarkable and other products exist, but they really don’t act exactly like a notebook. You can’t flip through the pages or dog-ear them. You can’t just hand a reMarkable off to someone to borrow or keep, it’s a $700 investment that’s tied to your online accounts. It has a battery life, and you need to have WiFi around to sync. In a truly perfect world I would just be able to lay my $5 paper notebook infused with nanobots or other such future magic onto a smart surface on my desk and my computer would automatically read the contents. Obviously we are a long way off, if it’s even possible to make something like that practically, but that’s the kind of interfaces I think we should work towards - computing so efficient and subtle you don’t realize it’s digital. I kind of hated the movie Her but I thought the scene where the main character is designing something by just sitting down at his desk and talking to the computer conversationally was really cool. We can probably get close-ish in the next 10 years with all this fancy AI.

eli_gottlieb 2y ago

I'm just gonna throw into this thread that when I bought a car, I deliberately demanded a model with a physical, metal key. Software is for things that are supposed to be flexible but don't really need to be reliable. For things meant to be reliable but not necessarily flexible or changeable, get hardware. And if someone's giving you software where hardware belongs, ask what flexibility they're getting out of it.

blueyes 2y ago

The thing is we can't wholly give up our devices and apps, because so many peoples' professional and social lives depend on them. So we have to manage it. It's more like a food addiction than alcohol, since alcohol, you can live without. I wrote about this here. https://vonnik.substack.com/p/how-to-take-your-brain-back https://vonnik.substack.com/p/how-to-take-your-brain-back

godelski 2y ago

The problem I see is that technology is not made for human life, it is made for money. Money was supposed to be the proxy, not the whole enchilada. There's so much low hanging fruit that will never get fixed because it has low monetary value but would help daily life. It's a lot of the little things that add up and compound. But you can't nickel and dime your way up because it's small things in big controlled platforms. I'll give an example. At my university each term we do a "survey" to communicate what we want to teach. It has such brilliant questions as "for what academic year" that has a single option and "what you previously taught". There is no caching, so you answer these questions over and over. Or how about every time I import a calendar I get a new copy of a holiday calendar and this doesn't automatically merge. There's a million things like these that are small but take tons time and add frustration. They are small but they add up and combine. A million things that take 0.1s but you do every day will still take up your entire day. It just seems we get more and more of this while we're trying to make the next big thing but can never do when we think one quarter at a time

HocusLocus 2y ago

I just bought a car battery charger, a soldering station (not the crazy thing with the RTOS and the apps, standalone and basic), a spare charging cable for my FLIP-PHONE, an Arduino, some MOSFETs and a capacitor/resistor assortments. It's too late for me to decouple technology from everyday life. Best go on without me. I wish you all luck.