Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wait Until 8th

waituntil8th.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 351 posts

Re: Wait Until 8th

#331

Post by tonymet »

caseyy wrote: post #311
tonymet wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree but they deserve credit for running a reasonable campaign. Look how you're ridiculing them, and now imagine how much ridicule they would receive if the campaign was total abstinence from smart phones? Running a contrarian campaign is hard, especially given all of the status , social pressure and marketing surrounding smartphones.

I agree. What I said may have come off as ridicule. This campaign is an important effort. I argue that we should have more such efforts, bigger efforts, and even alternative efforts to prevent people’s addiction to social media.

thanks for saying that

Re: Wait Until 8th

#332

Post by tonymet »

massive wrote: post #254
tonymet wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it for uploading glucose diagnostic results?

Yes, that's correct. It uploads data from the continuous glucose sensor to the medical device provider, allowing us parents to access that data on our smartphones. But it's not just about collecting statistics. For instance, delivering alerts to us, such as low glucose levels or pump malfunction, requires the phone to be present. Additionally, it allows for remote monitoring of glucose levels. For example, during win…

that's pretty neat

Re: Wait Until 8th

#333

Post by medion »

gwbas1c wrote: post #314
medion wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Sometimes you don’t need 10 peer reviewed articles to just know when something is bad. Were you the guy in the 60s saying smoking was totally fine because studies? Sometimes you just know inhaling smoke everyday is probably not good for you. Smart phones for kids is not good. It’s really simple.

> Smart phones for kids is not good. It’s really simple. The shape of the computer doesn't magically make it bad: It's what kids do that's the problem. We took our kids tablets away because they weren't disengaging. But that's because they were into Youtube, which is highly addictive. If they were just using the tablets as e-readers, it would be a different story.

But they weren’t using them as e-readers. Why would they, kids books with beautiful illustrations are 1000x better.

Re: Wait Until 8th

#334

Post by medion »

parasubvert wrote: post #275
medion wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Sometimes you don’t need 10 peer reviewed articles to just know when something is bad. Were you the guy in the 60s saying smoking was totally fine because studies? Sometimes you just know inhaling smoke everyday is probably not good for you. Smart phones for kids is not good. It’s really simple.

Yes, you do. I fundamentally disagree with you and don’t think you have reliable evidence to back up this claim. This reads like the pseudoscientists that are convinced aspartame causes cancer.

Sounds like contrarian nerdism to me.

Re: Wait Until 8th

#335

Post by horace123x »

peallyss successfully accessed my husband's phone discreetly. We worked together through the email address peallyss@gmail. com, which allowed me to gain entry into my husband's device. This experience has given me a newfound sense of security and peace of mind. For those looking for similar assistance, peallyss can be reached via his Instagram account, peallyss or contacted

Re: Wait Until 8th

#337

Post by noduerme »

sourcepluck wrote: post #300
noduerme wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real addiction, no matter how resistant you are. I'm 44. I've never had social media accounts. When I was 18 or so, I had a Palm Pilot with a cellular modem cradle that let you actually go to (mostly text-based) websites. It was the first smart phone, really. Amazing for finding information, for someone who didn't even have dial-up internet until 5 years earlier. But eventually I put the Palm Pilot away. It wa…

> I think of smartphones and the current app ecosystem as more like a swiss-army-knife of spyware and ad tech shoved into a package with as many sensors as possible, to monitor the population. And so, it had better be addictive. Because the underlying act of looking at one and spending so much time with one is, and always has been, antisocial and therefore somewhat repulsive. It took a great amount of marketing to no…

I'm happy to say I never built a free-to-pay game. I was only interested in casual arcade stuff you could play in 2 minutes while waiting for a bus. I considered anything with virtual goods to be unethical. Hate me if you must.

Still, I think gambling can be ethical. If done right. Giving a fair shot at a 97% average payback to consenting adults is at least as good as selling them garbage tokens.

So a bit of a side-track: I did design a slot machine (Flash, online) back in 2010, that let you build up bonuses and see how many multipliers you had built up until you were ready to use them on the next spins. That was when I was running my casino. I thought it clever. A player could use them at any time.

I tried to get that slot machine design approved through the Nevada Gaming Control Board, and they told me it would be illegal. A machine couldn't have a "memory" like that, which would entice players to keep adding money to get back their built-up bonuses. I countered that the player could run the bonus feature at any time, but, apparently even that violated the rules. If the player ran out of money, they'd still need to add more to trigger the bonus they'd accrued.

Flash forward to this year, I'm in Vegas and basically every slot machine is some variation of the fireworks/dragon machine where 3 separate bonuses build up over time... but not in any clear way, and where the last part of the bonus could take forever to actually be hit. Nor can the player force their bonuses into play. I dumped $700 on a machine, $100 at a time, explaining to my partner why this type of game was illegal 10 years ago, until I gave up on the SOB.

I'm mentioning this because, as a dev of casino games, I myself would have considered that type of game to be completely unethical. I don't specifically blame the devs; I think regulatory capture by companies like Bally has a lot to do with it. We had laws that prevented the worst kinds of addictive stuff from being peddled to the public, and those have been directly attacked and chipped away at.

Re: Wait Until 8th

#338

Post by zelphirkalt »

miki123211 wrote: post #292

As somebody who grew up right when the smartphone wave was starting, I feel extremely uneasy about ideas like this one. I have had almost unrestricted access to a computer since the age of 9, and to a smartphone since the age of 12, and I can definitely say that I wouldn't be the person I am right now without that access. It's sad to see people lament the demise of the "hacker spirit" on one hand, while denying their…

A locked down smart phone controller by Apple or Google is hardly a hacker's device. The pledge is about smart phones, not about computers.

Re: Wait Until 8th

#339

Post by jb1991 »

ahnick wrote: post #148
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that's true*, it honestly isn't good reason to give your kids a smartphone. Your job description as a parent is pretty much to stop your kids from doing things they don't understand will hurt them. There's (imo) plenty of evidence that smartphones are hurting kids, and therefore it's a parent's job to crack down on it even if it costs them in their social life. Like, if all the other kids were shooting up he…

Please provide links to the "plenty of evidence that smartphones are hurting kids".

It comes up all the time in the news, studies on the affect of smartphones on childhood depression and anxiety.

Re: Wait Until 8th

#340

Post by gwbas1c »

medion wrote: post #333
gwbas1c wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smart phones for kids is not good. It’s really simple. The shape of the computer doesn't magically make it bad: It's what kids do that's the problem. We took our kids tablets away because they weren't disengaging. But that's because they were into Youtube, which is highly addictive. If they were just using the tablets as e-readers, it would be a different story.

But they weren’t using them as e-readers. Why would they, kids books with beautiful illustrations are 1000x better.

That's for when they know how to read.

There are also e-readers that read along with the book, which are good for very young children who are just learning basic words.

Post reply on HN