31–40 of 108 posts
What I've found that works is using the command "lockout" with some weird modification of the sudoers file in order to allow only certain commands with sudo (or other commands with only certain arguments not matching forbidden patterns).
Can someone please help me with how to achieve the same thing on windows that works on any browser ? I tried some DNS blocking programs and can't get anything to work properly.
Definitely a fan of the service, works for me to help me get in a flow state and worth the few bucks they ask for.
Anything requiring sudo or su is not enough: too easy to just take the habit to type the password very fast. What I've found that works is using the command "lockout" with some weird modification of the sudoers file in order to allow only certain commands with sudo (or other commands with only certain arguments not matching forbidden patterns).
Deleted
More details about implementation: http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2020-05-25-blocking-distraction....
Anything requiring sudo or su is not enough: too easy to just take the habit to type the password very fast. What I've found that works is using the command "lockout" with some weird modification of the sudoers file in order to allow only certain commands with sudo (or other commands with only certain arguments not matching forbidden patterns).
It doesn't stop it in the moment, but logging the date to ~/.procrasts does provide at least some after-the-fact accountability. I think a lighterweight initial approach is good, and, if logging reveals that it's abused, then one can move to harder-to-circumvent solutions.
Anyone else feel that way? I wonder if it’s because Facebook has no longer become a place for novel content, and there’s an aversion to lingering on it. Of course this is my personal opinion, but I do think it’s easier to find topical content on Twitter and HN, and so they’re more distracting and worth blocking.
a side note, but a dimple but effective strategy I use for getting of time consuming websites is to just use a password manager for all my accounts on those sites. logging out of those accounts, and having the password only be accessible via another long and complicated password (to access the password vault) is usually enough of a barrier in the moment
I did a combination of this strategy and the one in the article. I changed my hosts file, then changed my root password to something with ~20 characters, then I gave the password to my wife (coworker would have also worked) and told them not to let me have it before 6pm. In cases I need to install something I just had to convince them of the necessity. The human element really worked wonders compared to a poorly tech…
I think some consideration of the social aspect here is required. I agree that part of a marriage is agreeing to help one another in these small accountabilities, but, if a random coworker tried to impose this on me, I would not appreciate even the small imposition on my time. It's not, and shouldn't be, my job to help a random coworker stop procrastinating.
… But maybe you meant "a coworker who is also a friend", in which case it's fine; but still then I'd argue that the important point is that you could give it to a friend, not that you give it to a coworker. In fact, even from a selfish point of view, the friendship is important: if a coworker asks this of me who isn't already a friend, then I'm less likely to spend energy in arguing with any password request, and so will simply grant it reflexively.
Thanks for the catalyst to re-enable my /etc/hosts approach to simplifying my life. I'm surprised to see that adding: 127.0.0.1 youtube.com www.youtube.com to /etc/hosts doesn't seem to block youtube, but every other line I added blocked/routed as expected. Is there something special about youtube and chromium?