My beef with this type of technology is threefold:
1) Most of it is just not very useful.
2) I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You can smell it.
3) Most importantly, these AI/chatbot/nudge/assistant/automation tools have a critical flaw--they're not predictable. Trying to manage them is like keeping a bunch of state in your head at the same time and it hurts. Which device is going to remind me? When? When will it remind me exactly? An hour before? 5 minutes before? Are my notification preferences saved from my last device that I recently replaced? Are my notifications turned on? Do I have sound turned on or only badge icons?
I think software works best when it has a bounded utility, not popping into your life unexpectedly 24x7, but being lightweight, simple, useful, and predictable for the 30 seconds you need it and that's it.
I'll second that. A tool being simple and easy to reason about will beat one that tries to be fancy and do things for me any day.
Sadly, the tendency in tech people seems to be to make things as god-awful complicated as possible.
DOS: Install applications by copying a folder of files to your disk. They include their dependencies, and they can't really conflict. Can be "installed" to removable media.
Modern OSs: Install applications using a package manager that will automatically detect conflicts and grab dependencies for you, except when it screws up and hoses itself then it is time for a reinstall. Can only install applications from managed repositories. Can only install applications to hardcoded paths. Has no concept of installing applications to removable media so you can use them from any computer. Most don't even have the concept of downloading packages and their dependencies for installation on a different computer.
The modern tech solution to the problems caused by package managers? Containerization.
Sometimes I feel like it's a sport to see who can come up with the most convoluted pile of abstractions to solve the simplest problems.
Whoa there, you seem to have gotten your things_used_to_be_better metaphors mixed up:
DOS: install program by copying a bunch of files to a directory. Start program, won't work as it needs something in config.sys. Add that something, reboot PC, try again and the program now complains about not having enough low memory. Fiddle with expanded/extended/extruded/exploded memory to get those extra 15 KB which the program needs. Reboot PC, the program now works but that other program which used to work doesn't anymore as the special something in config.sys conflicts with its own very special something.
Modern OS: install portable application, problem solved.
.app on the Mac and .appx on windows implements self contained apps you can copy around as necessary. Appx is a bit newer on the windows side you see them called "universal", or "store apps" depending on the marketing era they were made in. On the mac .app is the universal way to distribute apps since Mac OS X took over (and before that on NextStep).
While App Bundles of NextStep/OSX fame are pretty much precisely the kind of simplicity I'm talking about, Appx on Windows is a clusterfuck. I've never seen them used outside of the package manager, you need crap like Move-AppxPackage to change their location, and from what I can tell you can't run them at all unless they're registered with the system.
Technically it is totally possible to make portable Windows applications and people do it all the time, but it isn't the way applications are typically built and that causes a bunch of problems. Linux has the same issue, really. Linux users will talk about how silly the registry is, but the file hierarchy full of hardcoded paths is pretty much the same damn thing. It is also technically possible to make portable Linux applications, it's just slightly harder than Windows due to a few factors caused by everyone always working within the distro+package manager paradigm. Where they do have some form of "portable" application, they've over-engineered the hell out of it and use containerization to make it happen. AppImage is ok, it's only slightly over-engineered, but sadly even that doesn't work everywhere because of how much of a mess Linux is.
Appx does have mini registries which makes them moveable at a technical level. The main restrictions come from registration with the sandbox - which I admit completely defeats that aspect of the design.
That's a common problem with Microsoft. One team makes an elegant design but another team doesn't fully understand it and thwarts the improvements made.
> I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You can smell it.
Very interesting, and my initial reaction is that I agree. It's like art in that sense.
Now I'm trying to think of cases where it applies and where it doesn't, and maybe generalize that. A game? Of course. Applications? Yes, if the developer's vision embraces a variety of use cases and real world scenarios. Do I want that for my OS? It does give the OS a cohesive design, which is appealing, and predictability, but the dev's opinion better be that the OS should stay out of my way. A video driver? I guess anything could benefit from cohesive vision - it makes the software easier to reason about - but availability, compatibility and functionality seem paramount. ... I haven't yet left my laptop, so there are many more possibilities.
I definitely agree with you. It also just seems like such disingenuous crocodile tears from google.
Like don't act as if we don't see through this--you see how angry people are getting about facebook and all the other manipulative technologies tuned to be as addictive as possible for their advertiser's sake. You see the outrage and you know you've been doing the same thing so you're trying to get ahead of the PR disaster. All of a sudden google's all about disconnecting and not distracting you with AI-tailored bullshit and ads 24/7.
And yeah. Adding an AI assistant to your home and car isn't going in the right direction. Like how do they figure that's going to help you disconnect? I see the justifications but they feel really contrived. Just another way for them to soak up all your data and target you for more and more manipulative and addictive content.
I personally think that letting AI assistants into your life is yet another terrible idea. Why are we doing it? Is it really that great? Is a little bit of convenience really worth it? I think people will do literally anything for a slight increase in convenience, no matter how small. Anything. It's crazy.
add to 1) the economic and cultural fad about how awesome it is. Or stay ignorant and go with the flow. If you ever know history, the repetition is rapidly draining your mind.
I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement. The fact that Google are finally acknowledging that they have a role to play to help their users use their technology in a healthy rather than unhealthy way is extremely promising.
Take for example, the feature that allows you to set a limit on the time you spend on YouTube per day and the fact that it works across both mobile and desktop. This would seem to be in conflict with all the efforts they have made up until now with the auto-play and related videos features to keep you on YouTube. Some how, someone at Google has finally recognised that perhaps the person who spends their entire day watching one video after another is actually not as valuable a user to them as the one that watches a healthier 1-2 hours per day is amazing to me.
Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one, I can see that the initial implementation doesn't quite go far enough. For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight. Google's equivalent is that the screen simply goes greyscale. I would prefer that my phone simply turns off no questions asked (I know that you can schedule your phone to turn off at a particular time but it gives a 30 second warning which is too easy to dismiss - and when you do dismiss it, no more shut down attempts are made). Hopefully, Google will open enough access to these features to developers so that users can have the kind of control over their own technology that they need.
>I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement.
You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their users?
> Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one
Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?
> For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight.
Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop? Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?
Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't coming to your home and turning it off for you? People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" mindset.
> You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their users?
No of course not. I'd rather they didn't spy on anyone.
> Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?
I don't want everyone to adhere to my definition of wellbeing. I am simply happy that Google are developing tools that I believe will help me personally. This has nothing to do with my expectations for everyone else.
> Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop?
Yes.
> Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?
I don't.
> Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't coming to your home and turning it off for you?
Believe me I've tried. I meditate, I see a therapist, I get help from my social group, I have hobbies and relationships to occupy me. That doesn't mean I am not also addicted technology.
> People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" mindset.
This is such a bizarre conclusion to me. Firstly, I don't really care what Google provide for anyone but me. I think this is exciting because I think I will find it useful. I haven't said anything about how I think it will cure societies ills or anything regarding how it will affect anyone but myself. Secondly, you realise that up until now Google's algorithms are tuned very specifically to increase the time you spend using their products. They use all kinds of psychological tricks to bypass your normal self control. The best thing Google could do for me is to stop using these tricks but unfortunately, that would probably cost them a lot of money. Instead, here they are providing help for people like me who need it while not changing the experience of their services for the rest. I don't see why it's tyrannical to want the services I choose to use to have the features I want in them.
> Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop? Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?
When the products we use every day like Facebook and YouTube capitalize on the same reward pathways in our brain that drugs do by pumping out little bursts of dopamine, we might not actually have as much of a conscious choice whether to use (or stop using) these products as we think we do. [The Hacking of the American Mind][0] is an interesting exploration into brain chemistry and just how addictive some of these products can be. There's some glimmer of hope for me that these addictive products are admitting just how addictive they are and are starting to offer ways to manage the addictions.
This is off-side. This is akin to a cigarette dealer being proud of the grotesqueries on the side of the cartons that warn you of their side-effects. Culture is in shambles and recovery from the magnificent impact of the Internet will need more than widgets, doo-dads, and yet more Google products.
I feel a sort of embarrassment on account of this marketing angle. The concept of digital wellbeing is a paradox. Yuck.
It’s the fast-food salad option, or McDonald’s apple slices of tech. If they cared about their impact they’d address their role in it, not seek to marketeer their way out of it with empty gestures.
No not really. Physical and mental wellbeing is linked to financial wellbeing. It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.
I had cynically been wondering about the benefits Google might be trying to reap from this angle. The obvious one is good PR. The second is to lull the general concern around ethical conduct of the big tech companies. Perhaps less likely is an attempt to preempt mass flight from their services thanks to some kind of social movement to ditch tech that they might become collateral of.
The less cynical view is that Google is made of people, and people generally want to do good. Perhaps there are simply some influential people in the org that are interested in these kinds of things.
I don't understand this, are you defining feelings of happiness based on some sort of average over time? If so, what is the period and how is it determined?
I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of an instant.
> I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of an instant.
I might be misreading who you mean by "great great gp", but I don't think scottie_m thinks that google is raising the happiness baseline. At least that's not how I interpret
> it’s enough for the perception to exist without the reality for Google’s purposes.
Anyway, that's enough speculation about speculation for me for one day.
I was referring to my post's great great grandparent which was authored by spuz and contained the first use of the phrase whose meaning we're trying to nail down here:
> It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.
It tends to isolate people into self-reinforcing communities, many of which have two things in common: They have an enemy that they demonize, and they admit no wrong.
Not all communities are like that, but when communities (and now that I think about it, especially ones where your comments can get some kind of point or reward) get big they trend towards that. Possibly because those behaviors are low-hanging fruit in terms of your comment earning points. Points feel good. No one likes to admit it but they do.
This at least gives people a moment to consider the other forms of entertainment beyond a screen? Maybe go outside? Interact with people? Play an instrument? Make some art? Go volunteer somewhere? Stand up? Walk around?
A start of what? Those same alcohol purveyors still make a majority of income from a minority who drink irresponsibly. It’s like the army having, “killing is wrong” as a slogan, it’s just mouth noises and a start to nothing.
This is smart strategic positioning for Google because it feels like technology is creating dystopias.
Facebook depresses and alienates people, spreads disinformation and amplifies hate. Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians. Personal data gets stolen by criminals and hostile nations every day.
We're not going to unplug, and few people will roll their own alternatives.
So Google positions themselves as the safe, secure, trusted and healthy island in a sea of chaos, danger and distress.
> This is smart strategic positioning for Google because it feels like technology is creating dystopias.
While I personally agree, to an extent, and most people on HN at least grasp the idea, I wonder if most people out in the world have any notion of it. In that sad case, I'm not sure they are doing anything to improve their market position.
>Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians
As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers? There are what, like 2 deaths attributable to self-driving cars so far? Some dystopia.
IMO the real dystopia is being unable to contextualize statistics and news reports, which have become a pervasive part of people's leisure consumption.
This is fantastic, and Apple should follow suit. I hope this is just the beginning. These features are ones that I would use today:
* Disconnect at night.
Wind Down gets your phone ready for bed by letting you schedule changes to the display. Activating Night Light reduces blue light and Grayscale gets rid of all color, reminding you to switch off for the night.
* Quiet your phone with a simple gesture.
Easily turn on Do Not Disturb by flipping your phone face down.
* Manage your time spent in apps.
The app timer lets you set limits for how much you use your apps. When you’ve reached that limit, the app icon is grayed out for the rest of the day.
My hope is that eventually they will build in app limits into an AI system that will learn what kind of prompts work on the user and which don't. For example, is "Hey, you used YouTube 3 hours, 5 minutes already today, would you like to take a break for a while?" more or less effective than "You used YouTube more than 99.9% other people today. Maybe time to take a break?". There is so much potential here for smart behaviour nudges here that actually work. Hopefully Apple and Google will compete in this area to be the most effective.
No, I hope they don't do this. I hope the concept of personal responsibility gets cleaned up a bit and served in a new, cool jacket which makes it the thing to do for those who want to be part of the new wave. Not just as a fad but for real, the idea that the individual is responsible for his or her approach to all those life & love & happiness-sucking lures out there on the wild, wild net.
Most people will be able to learn, some will not and they'll get hooked, just like most people learn to handle alcohol or marijuana or exercise or food or... well, all those other things which - when taken to extremes - can ruin lives.
The scenario of the AI-equipped device which tells you it is time for bed reminds me of the space ship in the WALL-E movie where humanoid slugs zipped around on powered chairs from entertainment to entertainment. This is not a future I want to be part of.
I suspect that the more we learn about self control, the more it will come to resemble what we know about intelligence. It's heritable environmentally, genetically, and it's a learned habit. It's not evenly distributed among the population.
So with that said, we already use technology to enhance our intelligence -- reading and writing, for example, or more recently things like wikipedia and google maps. Why not use intelligence to enhance our self control as well, if it leads to more fulfilling lives?
Because it won't be self-control anymore if someone else - be it a sentient algorithm or a person - is at the controls. Mankind also used intelligence to create self-propelled carriages which most certainly enhance our mobility. That does not mean we need to give up on walking or cycling under our own power as that is proven to be disastrous for our well-being. I think - no, I am convinced - that the same goes for giving up control over (ab)use of technology to that same technology.
It might work for that part of the population which lacks sufficient self control just like insulin pumps work for that part of the population which lacks functional thyroid glands.
We haven't given up on walking or cycling but what about horseback riding? A tiny fraction of the population even interact with horses on an annual basis, let alone use them for anything but entertainment.
In this case, walking and cycling are like the basic functions of self discipline that almost everyone does like eating and going to the restroom. However, there are a significant number of people who need technological and human assistance with both of those things - whether it be because of age or genetics or poor life choices. All of those people are massively helped by technology.
Just because most people can walk on their own doesn't mean that we should force paraplegic to do so.
[OT] Re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16945325
Sry, I forgot to respond in time.
But, I asked them if they'd sell me a set of their Al-core PCB's (about 120$ iirc for 5 boards of VTC) with 1900K VTC, but the told me they wouldn't. As I could not see 1900K listed in the shop, I assume they are not in-stock and we'd have to reach MOQ for custom phosphor mixture run. As they do advertise spectrum-matched plant lighting, I think that is still regular business for them. If you feel like a Kickstarter or so would be worth it, please try to contact me, I'd like to help.
This page is just a list of ads for Google's products; I was expecting something more like a discussion about the design intents behind good tech products, from a site like this.
The biggest impact of this announcement will be in the consumer education about digital wellbeing and the pressure on Apple to compete on it.
The app dashboard is the only major new feature, which will likely be helpful for some but is only a small part of the equation, which Google acknowledges ("The first step toward digital wellbeing is often understanding more about how you interact with technology in the first place").
Siempo launcher (http://www.getsiempo.com) believes the design of the home screen is the root cause of the smartphone addiction problem. Stock and third party launchers have no protections against the persuasive techniques of engaging apps. Wind Down is a step in the right direction here.
The aspect of this which feels tone-deaf is that Google recognizes that too much technology is a real problem, and their proposed solution is ... more technology. It feels like they've created a disease, and also the medicine for it.
YouTube has a "time to take a break?" feature now, but autoplay is still on by default. Android has fancy voice recognition so you can say "Turn on do not disturb mode", but "disturb me mode" is still the default. We wouldn't need these bandaids if the technology wasn't designed from the start to be addictive and distracting.
They're treating the symptoms, but it's not clear they even understand the root cause.
The problem isn't even with the amount of technology. It's that the technology is being designed to abuse people. And then Google comes out and says that the solution to the problem of shitty, abusive technology is more shitty and abusive technology.
The solution should be technology focused on empowering users. But that doesn't make as much money as abusive tech.
Social media has become a social health problem and should be treated as such. YouTube still has the annoying auto play next set to on, and in my suggested viewing, I still see tones of shitty click-bait videos, for some reason.
They’re creating distraction, not helping to solve it. They’re driven by profit, why would they vaulanterly make they’re products less addictive or vaunarable people?
Regadles, “Social Corporate Responsibility” has already proven itself to be a sham.
It's rapidly becoming a problem of nations, too. Democracy isn't designed with such powerful persuasion tools in mind.
A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.
This has always been the case. No presidential candidate can win without millions of dollars in campaign 'contributions'.
Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.
I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.
You're presuming a whole lot about my political views. We've seen for a long time that the size of a political campaign in dollar amounts doesn't really correlate with who wins. We're not talking about official campaigns here. We're not talking about Hillary vs. Trump, although I see that you're getting all offended because you mistakenly thought I was slighting your boy. Calm down, this has nothing to do with him.
This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever.
And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.
Yes they are driven by profit but their algorithms are optimised for metrics such as watch time. They are finally realising that someone who literally spends 24 hours per day on their website isn't actually generating profit for them and they are changing their metrics to better align with the actual things that their users care about such as getting enough sleep and being productive.
> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it
(Almost) everyone agrees.
> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it
Google then goes on to offer something superficial.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love? What about inventing something new?
What about offering something that will actually save some of your time, by the way?
Nope. This is an ad about a stupid mobile phone app.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
No negativity intended here. Sure, it could help to know you are wasting your time with apps—as if you didn't know that.
Some apps are indeed useful and improving lives. But offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
I can't help but picture this ad with the missing clock ticking icon or with the inevitable skeleton in a hoodie carrying a scythe...
I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love?" - that is exactly how they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is going to allow you to do exactly that.
> offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.
I agree it is pretty weird to offer a product that is so good that users are literally addicted to it, and then offering tools to help users limit that addiction. You might imagine it would be pretty stupid for a a slot machine designer to include prompts every 30 minutes asking you to stop playing.
However, the difference is that a person when prompted to stop watching YouTube might decide to spend their time and money building a website on Google's cloud platform, or even realise they need to buy that thing they just saw an advert for and hence the prompts might actually help Google's profits, not hurt them.
> I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love?" - that is exactly how they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is going to allow you to do exactly that.
Well maybe because the pitch is different from what they actually offer. In effect you are going to spend ages monitoring shiny graphs that will not tell you anything of substance, as opposed to free more time for you to do something more interesting.
For example, suppose said Google app shows that you have spent 3 hours watching Youtube that day. Well that's pretty bad for your productivity, right?
Except if you were writing a novel or working on something while quietly listening to Vivaldi. You didn't even watch it—many Youtube "videos" are just sound recording, with static images or slideshows that you wouldn't bother to even look at.
Again, we can (almost) all agree that
> technology should improve life, not distract from it
I totally agree.
I installed Moment on my iPhone a couple of weeks ago to track my usage and scale it down a bit.
My commitment was unrelated to the app though, and I was able to use my phone less. So much so that two days ago I disinstalled moment because the daily notification about phone usage had become just another annoyance.
Apps that want to help use apps less are superfluous.
Can you substitute self control with shiny apps like this? I don't mean that there isn't anything that can help avoiding distractions, but (from my own experiences) I have doubts about the effectiveness of soft measures like this. Dismissing a notification about going to sleep or taking a break in the middle of a youtube-binge doesn't require much effort, and investigating what takes all your free time takes significant energy. A commenter mentioned a cron job that shuts down his/her laptop at midnight - this measure can be more effective, because it requires effort to continue what you were doing, not to stop it.
Not to mention the irony of using apps to make you spend less time using apps.
I would be interested to see a (opt-in) social experiment by YouTube where they enforce a hard 1.5 hour limit of watching per day.
This would encourage users to ration their time, making the decision of which videos to watch far more conscious and deliberate. Given a small enough ration, users will demand higher quality videos from content creators (whether directly or indirectly). Just take a look at all the click-baity content-farms out there pumping out listicles and "you won't believe...!", not to mention the new phenomenon of "YouTube Face".
If I'm watching a video of yours and you don't cut to the chase, fluffing up the video length in hopes of more favorable ad-revenue treatment, it's going to waste my ration and I'll switch to someone else.
Economics teaches us that value comes from scarcity. Life is short, so you better spend your time wisely. Money is valuable because you don't have unlimited wealth -- instead each purchase is an opportunity cost. We should bake that concept into modern social media and content platforms.
It may play out well for YouTube if users in this experiment end up more happy and more engaged with the content they're watching, and therefore ads are more effective. I question whether ads are as effective as they could be when people are just droning on through hours and hours of clickbait and low-quality content-farm material.
In this age of information over-abundance, maybe artificial scarcity can help.
I think this is going in a good direction (in contrast with many commenters). I love the idea of an assistant - remind me about stuff, help me become more productive, etc. :-p
I see these apps becoming more and more useful as we build more and more distractions for ourselves - from KFC, to Social media apps, etc.
All [#] technology improves life, but the problem is cognitive load. My electricity supply has almost zero cognitive load, and when i have to change a fuse, a actual freaking law made the electrician write which fuse controls which circuit (upstairs lights, downstairs mains)
But this only works for commoditised, well understood tech
For everything else - where we are still getting to grips with the right metaphor for the tool, the right approach is not configuration - it's API and openness.
All of the Facebook privacy issues go away if there's is an ecosystem of API providers and scripts to manage the problems - look at how eu banking is expecting the Payments directive 2 to go
Much of the distraction started with the mobile smart phone. Prior to 2007, although you could get addicted to desktop activities, most people out and about were not constantly glued to a shitty feature phone screen.
I wonder how many of the people claiming this is a PR stunt by Google will say the same thing when Apple introduces their version. Apple also benefits from addiction to their devices, even if they don’t run the addictive mobile services (exception iMessage) that create the constant demand to use them.
I view showing people where their time is spent as the same as showing them calories consumed. Whether for PR or not, it is useful information to have.
Well, I don't think there's a need to judge so fast. This is a first step. If we see more steps, we will be able to tell if they are going in the direction they say they want to go. I would just encourage them to do it right.
This is the one part of google that i find outright creepy. It sounds like an authoritarian party leader defining how long you should watch videos, when to sleep etc. It's big brother stuff 'for your own good'.
It would be less dishonest if they just used health data to notify the user about things like missing sleep etc, and letting him choose what to do. The way it's presented as a digital nanny is kind of infantilizing.
That release seems to add some late but useful ideas (launcher with useful action for the selection, really worthy in real life). The timers, the shush or fade out feature. Technically simple, but really valuable as a user IMO
If you're just trying to see how much time you're spending on things, and you don't want to be locked to Google/Android, I highly recommend RescueTime. It tracks how long you are active (i.e. not idle) on apps or websites. You can see how much time you spend on Hacker News by month, week, day, or hour.
I can't wait to open this app and be faced with shame as I stoop lower into my depression induced by attention-maximizing technology. I want to change, google throwing low key shade on me via specific details about my habits isn't going to change that. The problem isn't to what extent I am wasting my time – that much is obvious.
I want this to not suck. I have my doubts since gmail is ridiculously buggy with automatic syncing turned off. Only notifying for 'urgent' notifications reeks of just not getting it. That's just to pick on one of many examples of how their services are meant to be disruptive and are defective otherwise.
Oh look devil in disguise does it again. So unhelpful to people already in trouble. Is like throwing a medical kit at a somebody and let them figure out how to treat themselves.
You may start by not selling people's lives.
I went to the city the other day and it was surreal to see the amount of people glued to their phones and this is just 2018. I can't imagine when we will have sleek and compact AR glasses available.
Well, it's all about attention. People choose to divert their attention to a tablet because they don't want to attend the people around them. So, i don't think AR will make a difference here, it distracts you with the real world, when all you want is the digital one. The real world is finished already, it can't compete with the digital one in addictiveness.
This is clearly not a good-faith effort for Google to have you stop wasting time. Youtube has been around for over a decade and they're just getting to this now? I think this is clearly a minimum amount of effort to prevent backlash, and it is against their interests to invest in technology that helps you use their technology responsibly.
It depends on the type of blocking you want. Firefox + ublock origin is an easy way but mostly for adverts. Or if you want a bit more hardcore without root install blokada from http://blokada.org You'll have to "allow external APK sources" though from device settings, as it is not in the Play store. It routes your traffic through a local VPN, so works in all applications, and has black and white listing of hosts. By default it uses a blacklist that blocks advertising hosts.
haha, if I used all of these google apps I wouldn't have time to take a poop, much less eat, but then I wouldn't have to poop cuz I wouldn't have time to eat or have a life from all of the google apps I would be using trying to improve my life, if you do not see this open your eyes.
There is another angle - healthier user's are more productive and spend more of their money on google's and its advertiser's products. Why would they NOT care about the well being of their users?
That feels like the public line. I understand google isn't the illuminati looking to dominate the world from behind the scenes, but I am highly skeptical about their motives behind this.
In the US, other than YouTube, google has very little in the way of dopamine as a service, like Facebook, Twitter, Snap, IG, etc. This feels like an attempt to get in on the technology addiction by feigning to be anti-addiction.
I love the cognitive dissonance here. The same people attacking google for monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users are celebrating google for monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users.
They don't want "daddy google" but yet they want "daddy google" to tell them how much youtube to watch, what to search, when to go to bed, etc.
When google starts talking in a paternalistic manner, I worry. And my skeptical side just sees this as google's ploy to justify monitoring people. "Hey, we keep your private information and monitor you for your benefit.". Yeah right.
We're well past the point of Google storing private information and manipulating their users. If you're going to assume we have already lost those two battles, wouldn't you prefer your adversary to concede you a little bit of freedom to sleep better and feel healthier? The only alternative is to drop our technology all together, or develop a kind of self-control that most people have demonstrated they don't have.
1) Most of it is just not very useful.
2) I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You can smell it.
3) Most importantly, these AI/chatbot/nudge/assistant/automation tools have a critical flaw--they're not predictable. Trying to manage them is like keeping a bunch of state in your head at the same time and it hurts. Which device is going to remind me? When? When will it remind me exactly? An hour before? 5 minutes before? Are my notification preferences saved from my last device that I recently replaced? Are my notifications turned on? Do I have sound turned on or only badge icons?
I think software works best when it has a bounded utility, not popping into your life unexpectedly 24x7, but being lightweight, simple, useful, and predictable for the 30 seconds you need it and that's it.