61–70 of 143 posts
Here's a similar one that I build few years back. It forces you to wait specified number of seconds before visiting a website. That way you break the dopamine cycle. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/waitblock/kcnjfepp...
Hey HN, I've been working on a Chrome/Firefox extension called Intention to help me stay focused and not get distracted, and for me and my friends, we've found it more effective than other tools we've tried. The idea behind it is extremely simple: Commit to a time limit before using a distracting site. This prevents the two most common ways that we get sucked into distractions online: 1. Habitual navigation: Througho…
I find myself caught in the y/t/f loop all the time. I use a site blocker, but if I do want to visit a site, I end up turning off the blocker and forgetting to re-enable it. This seems like much a better solution that allows me access to the sites I need, but ensures I don't get lost in them, and tracks my usage.
I am seriously so pumped about this, funny that I needed to visit one of my blacklist sites (hacker news) in order to find this. Please keep us posted with updates (settings page of the app?), if I continue to use this I'd be happy to pay for it in the future.
One thing I'd love to be able to do right now is whitelist certain times in the middle of the day. For example, lunch. Punching in 30 mins on a site is an easy fix, but it'd be nice if that were built in.
Feature request:
"Focus mode"
Ability to start a focus session for 30m, 1h, 2h etc. in addition to having the schedule. E.g. by default my schedule allows browsing reddit on the weekend, but if I need to get something done on Sunday I can get click the focus button. Or disable schedule and use it only in focus sessions. For now I can only either change the schedule constantly or disable/enable the extension. A simple "Focus" button would solve those 2 cases.
The focus mode could even countdown the focus time with a different colour.
This would replace RescueTime for me and I've been a paid user for years.
On this topic, another add-on I have found to be fairly helpful is called "Pluckeye" [1]. At its base level, it simply blocks all images and video from your browser. You can customize it by adding/removing websites from the blacklist, and is fairly robust to occasional cravings by having a delay on changes to the blacklist that allow a website. The only downside is that most websites now look broken, but I've found that I don't really miss being bombarded by the colorful graphics on websites.
I think there is significant work to be done on making these tools more widely known, but I'm happy with the progress being made. Good job, again!
Hey this looks really helpful! I appreciate your commitment to privacy, that's a very important feature for me. Nonetheless, having been burned by Chrome extensions in the past [1], I'm worried about privacy and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to make it open source to allay those concerns. [1] https://robertheaton.com/2018/07/02/stylish-browser-extensio...
Hey! I totally get where you're coming from. I wrote a post exploring the privacy and security of Chrome extensions: https://www.notion.so/dkthehuman/Day-4-The-Danger-of-Chrome-... I'd love to open source Intention like I've done with a ton of previous projects ( http://github.com/dkthehuman/ ), but since it's a Chrome extension, that'd make it trivial for anyone to copy. Given that I'd like to eventually develop a p…
I'd recommend a free extension with a paid plan which has additional features. Provide the basics in the free version and the really good stuff in the paid version.
If source code is the same and it's just feature flagged based on a ping to a server to validate a license key, then it'd be indeed easy to copy the paid features in another extension. To a large extent you'd be relying on the web store moderation a copy to not be published and to tech-savvy users to not install it locally.
However, that approach could ensure a wider reach of users so the share of the paying ones to be big enough in absolute numbers.
Marketing the extension to non-developer audience would help reduce the chance of manual installation.
The biggest difference would be that the developer audience could contribute to the open-source code and you'd be making money from those contributions. I don't think the income from that alone would be enough to support you in the short-term, but in the long-term with good expansion with other products, that could prove to be a very strong passive income.
This but an Android launcher
While now 100% the same as this, I've found introducing some extra friction can go a long way in curbing unwanted behaviors