90% of Waking Hours Spent Staring at Glowing Rectangles (2009)(theonion.com)
theonion.com
90% of Waking Hours Spent Staring at Glowing Rectangles (2009)
https://www.theonion.com/report-90-of-waking-hours-spent-staring-at-glowing-re-1819570829
63 comments
>minimal whitespace
Your examples seem to have plenty of whitespace, at least 1 and 2 do. That said I quite like whitespace.
I think there much to be said for sites that look like traditional nicely done books eg https://bikes-n-stuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMG_922... which is a look which evolved over many decades.
Your examples seem to have plenty of whitespace, at least 1 and 2 do. That said I quite like whitespace.
I think there much to be said for sites that look like traditional nicely done books eg https://bikes-n-stuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMG_922... which is a look which evolved over many decades.
The silk icons are fine visually, but way too complex to tell them apart quickly. [2] looks like an example of the headache badly mixed typography can cause.
Those are opinions, of course, but I don't think the basics (like soothed senses) are controversial, many of which can be objectively studied.
Those are opinions, of course, but I don't think the basics (like soothed senses) are controversial, many of which can be objectively studied.
2030 rectangles are back to pure retro forms! Most design today is based on trends, and hardly any objectivity: https://www.google.com/search?q=design+trends
I'd be overjoyed at the prospect of a life with meaningful activities and interactions that don't require a screen. I have yet to succeed in making much progress towards that goal.
It bothers me that instead of adapting the tool to us we have adapted ourselves to the tool.
It bothers me that instead of adapting the tool to us we have adapted ourselves to the tool.
There are plenty, at least pre-pandemic.
• Explore a national park, go on a few hikes (guided by paper maps and a compass), and refine your photography skills with a DSLR/mirrorless. Budget ones can be had for a couple hundred dollars and they still beat phone cameras. • Cook something with your friends, or go out and eat dinner. • Play some board games, join a dungeon and dragons game. A great thing to do when the weather is bad. • If you have children, spend some screen free, activity free time with them. You could just chat, teach them spontaneous new skills, or explore together. • Have a maker itch but don’t want to look at a screen? Play around with physical hardware. Get a soldering iron, some components from Digikey, and make something yourself (and have fun). • Go to a party, festival, or rave. • Drive somewhere and just camp with good company and some drinks. • Meet a friend or colleague spontaneously for coffee and just catch up. • Draw. • Learn renovation and make your home better, just the way you want it (and increase its value). • Learn how to change oil on your car and start doing maintenance yourself. Fixing a car is kinda like fixing a computer. • Go for a swim. • Go to the gym, or workout with mates. • Read a book. • Go for a walk while listening to your favourite albums.
Life is filled with meaningful, screen-free alternatives. You just have to appreciate them.
• Explore a national park, go on a few hikes (guided by paper maps and a compass), and refine your photography skills with a DSLR/mirrorless. Budget ones can be had for a couple hundred dollars and they still beat phone cameras. • Cook something with your friends, or go out and eat dinner. • Play some board games, join a dungeon and dragons game. A great thing to do when the weather is bad. • If you have children, spend some screen free, activity free time with them. You could just chat, teach them spontaneous new skills, or explore together. • Have a maker itch but don’t want to look at a screen? Play around with physical hardware. Get a soldering iron, some components from Digikey, and make something yourself (and have fun). • Go to a party, festival, or rave. • Drive somewhere and just camp with good company and some drinks. • Meet a friend or colleague spontaneously for coffee and just catch up. • Draw. • Learn renovation and make your home better, just the way you want it (and increase its value). • Learn how to change oil on your car and start doing maintenance yourself. Fixing a car is kinda like fixing a computer. • Go for a swim. • Go to the gym, or workout with mates. • Read a book. • Go for a walk while listening to your favourite albums.
Life is filled with meaningful, screen-free alternatives. You just have to appreciate them.
I've tried a number of these activities. What I've found is that most if not all the ones I've tried require and imply screen time. I go down rabbit holes of scrolling phone for the perfect sofa, the perfect cycling jersey, the best mountain airbnb, and so on.
The only real way to escape smartphones is to live a 1970s life where the only things you know come from other people or the radio/tv. I have a slight yen to try this but I can't bear to actually try it. It would be like cutting off a limb. I'd be so information poor.
The only real way to escape smartphones is to live a 1970s life where the only things you know come from other people or the radio/tv. I have a slight yen to try this but I can't bear to actually try it. It would be like cutting off a limb. I'd be so information poor.
Smartphones are not the enemy: treat them as a tool you use to make your life as full as it can be.
I don’t understand why spending time researching a cool Airbnb diminishes the non-screen-time nature of going to the mountains.
I don’t understand why spending time researching a cool Airbnb diminishes the non-screen-time nature of going to the mountains.
These are all great suggestions. I've certainly enjoyed many of these activities (well, before 2020 I suppose).
What drives me crazy is that getting a job that doesn't involve a computer implies some serious tradeoffs, while the computer also bleeds into many of these occupations you listed (especially when needing to learn something).
> It bothers me that instead of adapting the tool to us we have adapted ourselves to the tool.
Isn't that always the way it is? Society made obvious shifts with the invention of the car. With the invention of the printing press, we adapted by teaching people to read the things it produced.
Adapting to our tools seems like the reason we live anything like we currently do. Otherwise we'd still live in communities in the woods, with technology that has adapted to us (which is an interesting thing to think about).
Isn't that always the way it is? Society made obvious shifts with the invention of the car. With the invention of the printing press, we adapted by teaching people to read the things it produced.
Adapting to our tools seems like the reason we live anything like we currently do. Otherwise we'd still live in communities in the woods, with technology that has adapted to us (which is an interesting thing to think about).
The monolith
Nice, this predates the relevant xkcd.
https://xkcd.com/722/
Egon Schiele - Man in Chair
The system works
It's the lack of interesting new information that drives humans to look into these portable screens. Humans aren't cats to be content with the 4 walls around them.
I'm not sure cats are content with the 4 walls around them, either. (Plenty of cats prefer the outdoors, even if they sleep inside.)
Well yeah - What do cats do? Hunt little critters and patrol/defend territory. It is difficult to get suitable environmental enrichment indoors for something that can't read.
I’ve seen many a cat enjoy cardboard boxes.
Ehhh... There is a reason they say curiosity killed the cat.
I thought this was funny, but the serious point behind it is that we're only beginning to understand the negative effects that screen time has on humans.
Really? My friend wrote her dissertation in 1989 or 1990 on the affects of television on children. The affects were dire.
We’ve known about this a long time, even before screens were interactive.
We’ve known about this a long time, even before screens were interactive.
Really? (No pun or /s intended). I grew up in the 80's and 90's watching a significant amount of television. Myself and my like friends seem to be ok. Didn't go mad or become dumb. Matter of fact, we seem to excell in the digital age because of how familiar we are with the tech behind the television. I'm not saying there could not be some detrimental effect, but it seems the research stating as such was a bit overblown and was more driven by fear than by observed facts.
Yep. I agree. Nevertheless, the research was there.
The name of the supra-FAANG, all encompasing global corporate monolith in my post-mcluhanist-super-late-stage-capitalist dystopia novel: Rectangle Group...Ahhh, the ancient Greeks worst nightmare ><
In the old days, the rectangles didn't even glow. In fact, they even stained our fingers black sometimes.
The new Croods movie makes a great joke of this. The cavemen come across a slightly more modern group of people and they have windows. One of the cave kids becomes obsessed with watching out the window and even builds a portable window to watch the world through.
Love when they give the parents little pieces of humor like that!
Love when they give the parents little pieces of humor like that!
Because this thread always needs someone to say the obvious truth: "Screen time" isn't the most useful concept. Maybe it was in the TV days (though with diverse programming it may not have been), but with phones/tablets/laptops it's as broad a label as "technology company".
Are we talking about chatting with friends? Doing work? Watching a show? Playing a game? Reading the news? A novel? Meeting with people? Organising transport? Finding a place to eat?
There is a diversity of rectangles, and for each rectangle there is a diversity of uses.
Are we talking about chatting with friends? Doing work? Watching a show? Playing a game? Reading the news? A novel? Meeting with people? Organising transport? Finding a place to eat?
There is a diversity of rectangles, and for each rectangle there is a diversity of uses.
All of us with seldom exception use our glowing rectangles as addictive dopamine drips that exploit our innate desire to scavenge for information that ends up disconnecting us from the world and, likely, things we actually find fulfilling. And we watch our own children suffer the exact same way and wonder what can actually be done about it.
There was a submission this morning or yesterday about "if we could live our lives over" where many HNers were lamenting how they felt like they were wasting their precious hours. How many of those people would say that their screen time wasn't contributing? Or that it was actually fulfilling?
Not sure who here relates to the idea of spending the bulk of their screen time organizing transport and planning dinner parties or whatever. Or the idea of "no, I actually do like how much time I spend on <vice> and I'm trying to get those numbers up even higher."
For some reason whenever this topic comes up, we have people playing coy with what "screen time" could possibly be referring to. "What, you're saying it's bad to use my iPhone to Facetime my dying father?"
There was a submission this morning or yesterday about "if we could live our lives over" where many HNers were lamenting how they felt like they were wasting their precious hours. How many of those people would say that their screen time wasn't contributing? Or that it was actually fulfilling?
Not sure who here relates to the idea of spending the bulk of their screen time organizing transport and planning dinner parties or whatever. Or the idea of "no, I actually do like how much time I spend on <vice> and I'm trying to get those numbers up even higher."
For some reason whenever this topic comes up, we have people playing coy with what "screen time" could possibly be referring to. "What, you're saying it's bad to use my iPhone to Facetime my dying father?"
It's not essential to your argument, but the whole "dopamine drip" thing is not helping. Using ancient disproven 1970s neuroscience tropes here in such a broadly incorrect way just makes me dismiss your potentially legit reasoning.
I took it as a metaphor. The argument makes perfect sense in that light.
Engage with the argument rather than its presentation, and you might just move the conversation forward.
Engage with the argument rather than its presentation, and you might just move the conversation forward.
People who try to call things addictive without evidence do real damage. Governments then take up this "addictive" label and make things illegal. Screens are not addictive. That word has a real meaning. Op in this context tried to justify the use of addiction by some folktale neuroscience from ages past.
I agreed with him that maybe there's something to not always looking at screens. But I strongly disgree with you. I was attacking a dangerous part of the argument.
I agreed with him that maybe there's something to not always looking at screens. But I strongly disgree with you. I was attacking a dangerous part of the argument.
I think this is a strange thing to hear from being a bit older. 30-40 years ago, most people did not spend their time reading the paper and watching TV.
There was vastly more time spent interacting directly with friends and family as well as hobbies and interests that were not consuming media. It was much more common for people to stop by, often unannounced and hang out and talk for several hours. Just talking in person was very popular. Also, people spent much more time on errands and house tasks. It was very rare to have landscapers or housekeepers. This was before dishwashers and people rarely ate out. So cooking and cleaning were common. Super cheap goods from China had not yet arrived so maintenance on things around the house was more common than replacement.
This isn’t at all to be taken as things were better, or worse, it is simply to relay that people did a lot more than consume media and communicate electronically.
There was vastly more time spent interacting directly with friends and family as well as hobbies and interests that were not consuming media. It was much more common for people to stop by, often unannounced and hang out and talk for several hours. Just talking in person was very popular. Also, people spent much more time on errands and house tasks. It was very rare to have landscapers or housekeepers. This was before dishwashers and people rarely ate out. So cooking and cleaning were common. Super cheap goods from China had not yet arrived so maintenance on things around the house was more common than replacement.
This isn’t at all to be taken as things were better, or worse, it is simply to relay that people did a lot more than consume media and communicate electronically.
Most people certainly sat the entire evening in front of the TV 30 years ago. Even today old people sit over 7 hours a day in front of the TV since they haven't adapted to newer media yet.
https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv-consumption-by...
For history you can see that about 30-40 years ago people watched 7 hours of TV per day, then it went up to 9 and now it goes down again as people start using computers instead. I don't think this is a bad development switching from TV to computers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-...
https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv-consumption-by...
For history you can see that about 30-40 years ago people watched 7 hours of TV per day, then it went up to 9 and now it goes down again as people start using computers instead. I don't think this is a bad development switching from TV to computers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-...
When I was a kid we didn't have a TV, but that doesn't mean we spent all day talking.
My dad spent his time reading the newspaper or Dick Francis murder mysteries, my mom spent her time either on the phone talking to people or laying cards. (Like Windows Solitaire but with actual cards).
When I wasn't fighting with my sisters I spent my time reading Donald Duck comics or playing Lego on my own.
Sure, we can pretend that we spent so much quality time with another all the time before screens came along, I'm just not sure it's actually true.
My dad spent his time reading the newspaper or Dick Francis murder mysteries, my mom spent her time either on the phone talking to people or laying cards. (Like Windows Solitaire but with actual cards).
When I wasn't fighting with my sisters I spent my time reading Donald Duck comics or playing Lego on my own.
Sure, we can pretend that we spent so much quality time with another all the time before screens came along, I'm just not sure it's actually true.
Reductionism is fun.
"90% of waking hours spent activating tendons in response to electrical impulses".
"90% of waking hours spent activating tendons in response to electrical impulses".
Right. Did people clutch pearls over "paper time" when they would wake up and read a newspaper, stare at papers all day at work/school, a magazine during their lunch break, and read a book before falling asleep?
Why, in the 1700s, they did.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/media’s-first-moral-pan...
https://didyouknowfacts.com/facts/as-novels-became-more-prom...
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Novel-Reading-Pani...
Some went so far as to ban reading for certain groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_per...
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/media’s-first-moral-pan...
https://didyouknowfacts.com/facts/as-novels-became-more-prom...
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Novel-Reading-Pani...
Some went so far as to ban reading for certain groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_per...
The difference between newspapers and internet news is that the newspaper for a given day is finite.
Once one has read whatever articles they were interested in for that day, that's it. No refreshing multiple times per day, no reading long comment threads, no frustration about said comment threads ("how can people be so wrong on the internet, must reply"), no live updates on stories, and more time to think instead of mindlessly consuming more information that's of lower quality.
Once one has read whatever articles they were interested in for that day, that's it. No refreshing multiple times per day, no reading long comment threads, no frustration about said comment threads ("how can people be so wrong on the internet, must reply"), no live updates on stories, and more time to think instead of mindlessly consuming more information that's of lower quality.
Most daily newspapers have plenty stuff to read for hours, and often come with extras with even more stuff to read.
Clearly you've never been a New Yorker subscriber.
I'm not sure I follow you here, can you elaborate on what you mean?
The New Yorker has long form articles that take longer to read than the typical daily newspaper article, sure, but I'm not sure how that makes it non finite or more engaging than daily newspapers.
The New Yorker has long form articles that take longer to read than the typical daily newspaper article, sure, but I'm not sure how that makes it non finite or more engaging than daily newspapers.
Every subscriber has an endless stack like this in one or more rooms of their home or apartment: https://www.google.com/search?q=stack+of+unread+new+yorkers&...
They don't throw them out because they really intend to finish them one day.
They don't throw them out because they really intend to finish them one day.
Some people, I’d venture a guess at 1/100 people, can and do use printed text compulsively. Other people, I’d venture a guess at closer to at least 9/10 people, can and do use screens compulsively.
This topic comes up a lot and I am always astounded at how people so candidly compare screens to books. Many people I meet in my day to day life do not have the concentration required to read a novel. Maybe its time to put my glowing rectangle down.
This topic comes up a lot and I am always astounded at how people so candidly compare screens to books. Many people I meet in my day to day life do not have the concentration required to read a novel. Maybe its time to put my glowing rectangle down.
Isn't this just because screens now do more?
Even before screens, some people talked on the phone compulsively, some played chess compulsively, some sat in their basement building things out of legos compulsively. Now it's possible to do all those things via a single screen. When looked at in this way, a screen is basically just a tool that takes on the form of many different physical objects rather than something nefarious.
Even before screens, some people talked on the phone compulsively, some played chess compulsively, some sat in their basement building things out of legos compulsively. Now it's possible to do all those things via a single screen. When looked at in this way, a screen is basically just a tool that takes on the form of many different physical objects rather than something nefarious.
It wasn't a novel for everyone. For others, it was Sports Illustrated or a comic book or the crossword or Reader's Digest.
Or, if they weren't reading, they'd flip on the TV and watch whatever was on for four hours, then brush their teeth, then Johnny Carson in bed. It's not like the average American was spending their evening sculpting before the internet.
Or, if they weren't reading, they'd flip on the TV and watch whatever was on for four hours, then brush their teeth, then Johnny Carson in bed. It's not like the average American was spending their evening sculpting before the internet.
It's easy to think that because we can't see exactly what people are doing on their phone (we physically only see them staring at a glowing screen unless we stand behind them and snoop) we default to saying exactly what we see: People staring at glowing rectangular screens. This sort of thinking about cell phone use is incredibly lazy.
When I'm reading a book, I'm not just staring at a binding of paper. When I'm listening to music, I'm not just sticking earbuds into my ears and staring blankly at the wall. Has the author ever used a phone before? Or are they just glowing rectangles to them?
When I'm reading a book, I'm not just staring at a binding of paper. When I'm listening to music, I'm not just sticking earbuds into my ears and staring blankly at the wall. Has the author ever used a phone before? Or are they just glowing rectangles to them?
Yep, I have an iPad which I use purely for drawing. Technically it counts as screen time but the activity is really no different to drawing on paper. Unless perhaps you are studying eye strain
Exactly, my first reaction to this was “90% of waking hours spent staring at atoms.” I can describe life in even more absurd ways if I try, but what’s the point?
Well one point is that information exchanged through a screen is always mediated (in contrast to the physical world). Screens have a form factor, screens usually have a third party organising the content that is being exchanged. Screens are flat surfaces. You operate through screens in a sort of purely functional input-output rather than spontaneous way.
So the screen being a technological and commercial artifact, imposes a lot of rules on how we interact through it, sort of like an API. And that's noteworthy compared to the time before we were interacting through screens.
So the screen being a technological and commercial artifact, imposes a lot of rules on how we interact through it, sort of like an API. And that's noteworthy compared to the time before we were interacting through screens.
Every medium of interaction, even human to human has rules and limitations on the interaction.
In-person human to human interaction also has some significant negatives. It's very low bandwidth as information must be transmitted mostly via voice which is lossy and prone to misinterpretation on either end. Attempts to terminate interactions early may have negative effects on future ability open an interaction with that individual. The in-person protocol also forces you to transmit visual sidechannel information, including biometric details. Other individuals can and will judge you throughout the interaction based on these biometric details.
In-person human to human interaction also has some significant negatives. It's very low bandwidth as information must be transmitted mostly via voice which is lossy and prone to misinterpretation on either end. Attempts to terminate interactions early may have negative effects on future ability open an interaction with that individual. The in-person protocol also forces you to transmit visual sidechannel information, including biometric details. Other individuals can and will judge you throughout the interaction based on these biometric details.
We have an amazingly beautiful world, from lush forests to deep blue oceans, with billions of wonderful humans, yet we choose to spend the vast majority of time on a virtual world we’ve created.
That’s how you’ve interpreted the light that has bounced onto your retina.
Ultimately we all live in the virtual worlds we create in our minds through interpreting our senses, it’s not immediately obvious to me why I should generally prefer one over the other.
Ultimately we all live in the virtual worlds we create in our minds through interpreting our senses, it’s not immediately obvious to me why I should generally prefer one over the other.
Technically, that virtual world is still part of this world. Wonderful humans created those virtual worlds where you can probably find more wonderful humans.
True, but isn’t that why vendors that track screen time also offer a means of categorizing it? At least Apple does, I’m fairly certain Android does.
I’d be interested in seeing this extended to “listening time” as well since I probably use my headphones and speakers more than I use the glowing rectangles.
I’d be interested in seeing this extended to “listening time” as well since I probably use my headphones and speakers more than I use the glowing rectangles.
I’m reading this on a glowing rectangle, what a coincidence.
[deleted]
theonion is a satire website but not always wrong.
All glory to the hypnotoad.
Another Onion gem from 2000: “Area Man Consults Internet Whenever Possible” [1]
> "I was on the phone getting directions to a restaurant we were going out to," Pamela said, "when Larry started yelling, 'No, no, don't ask! I'll find it!' So he opens up mapquest.com, enters our address and the restaurant's, and within 10 minutes, he had complete door-to-door directions printed out."
> "That's right," Larry said. "And she wanted to get a pen and write down the directions by hand."
[1] https://www.theonion.com/area-man-consults-internet-whenever...
> "I was on the phone getting directions to a restaurant we were going out to," Pamela said, "when Larry started yelling, 'No, no, don't ask! I'll find it!' So he opens up mapquest.com, enters our address and the restaurant's, and within 10 minutes, he had complete door-to-door directions printed out."
> "That's right," Larry said. "And she wanted to get a pen and write down the directions by hand."
[1] https://www.theonion.com/area-man-consults-internet-whenever...
Here are some relics with sane typography, iconic icons and compact UI [1][2][3].
[1] https://www.martinmajoor.com/6_my_philosophy.html
[2] http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/news