Hi Royce and Oliver, I have a suggestion: look into dimming the screen slowly for the last 30-60 seconds before you pull a person out of the app. This will greatly decrease the annoyance of being pulled out. It gives you time to anticipate being done with your session. I do this with my toddler.
We let him use our phone to look at family videos while we are changing him. If I turn the phone off abruptly, it can be frustrating for him at times. However, if I manually dim the screen more and more (and lower the volume more and more), it feels natural that the phone is getting "tired". He is then okay with leaving the phone.
This is brilliant, will absolutely hack around with it this weekend. I think it's possible to temporarily modify brightness on iOS as a third party app, thanks very much for the suggestion
Instead of brightness, you could make the screen go black and white. I already do this to reduce my screen time. You can set screen colors in accessibility, and scrolling instagram is much more boring when it's in B&W.
Absolutely gold suggestion. This might just be the future for most internet-connected device use, and particularly for children/supervised use like you're describing.
Do you have physical brightness buttons? Do you have any more gradual transition hacks?
Our 2-yr old doesn't have access to phones at all -- except perhaps when he grabs one that's lying around; but then he expects it taken from him. But he's so taken with TV that we plan screen time in reverse: start at dinner time and subtract how much time we want him to be there. Our whole approach to tantrums is having something else lined up rather than just shutting things off and leaving a void. I'm fascinated by your methods.
We don’t have a tv in the house. And we don’t use our phones/iPad in front of our son. So the only time he sees a screen is when we are changing his diaper. The only exception has been when we are all sick we watch a family movie on the iPad with him. And if I’m being honest a few Saturday mornings I’ll watch a show with him while we are waking up.
Correct, as he gets older this won’t work because he will understand what I’m doing.
I’ve thought about writing an app that shows a pre set collection of videos from my photo library and then slowly turns down the brightness after a few minutes. If anyone want to build this let me know. I’d love to use it.
It's this and a thousand other "hacks to handle human failings" that will allow us to have the promise of technology while minimising the downsides - just as we did for weavers looms, coal
power and so on
Patagonia's stated mission is to save the earth and microplastics entering the oceans is a major environmental concern. However, it is also true that many of Patagonia's clothes are made from synthetic materials such as plastic. The use of synthetic materials in clothing (and each washing) greatly contribute to the problem of microplastics in the oceans.
I’m I missing something? Is the above wrong? Or is Patagonia lying about their mission driven approach?
Saving the earth is a complex aim with so many different areas to prioritise. Synthetics may produce micro plastics, but then natural fibers like cotton require huge amounts of pesticides and water, viscose or bamboo requires a shit load of chemicals. Carbon footprints for almost all textiles are big. Recycled plastic is a low carbon, no pesticide, low impact material with one downside - micro plastics.
Polyester is one of the few success stories around recycled plastic. It’s not like the alternative is to turn your old plastic bottle into a new plastic bottle, plastic recycling is almost always downcycling the material into a lower grade product.
Like most things around conservation and the environment, it is complicated and there are loads of stakeholders - biodiversity, micro plastics, chemical accumulation, CO2 and greenhouse gases, deforestation, waste management, just to name a few.
One thing we can be sure of is the best thing is to not buying new clothes. In fact this philosophy should be applied to every consumer good. Making things is extremely bad for the environment. Patagonia have been pretty consistent around this point, for example as far back as 2001 they had their “don’t buy this jacket” ad: https://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/jovanalleshi/patagonia-sustainabil...
This is the elephant in the room that most consumer goods companies don’t want to talk about. They can make things out of bamboo or produce paper straws or have recyclable packaging, but fundamentally even environmentally friendly products have a huge environmental impact.
Ultimately Patagonia’s mission statement is at odds with the reason it or any company exists. Saving the earth isn’t profitable.
> This is the elephant in the room that most consumer goods companies don’t want to talk about
If it was just companies not wanting to talk about this, things would be fine. Problem is that neither policymakers, nor common citizens want to talk about this apart from a miniscule minority. This includes the overwhelming majority of those who claim to espouse eco-friendly values and to be willing to make lifestyle changes to stick to them. If you're not buying less new things, including e.g. doing a house renovation using new materials, you're almost certainly far less eco-friendly than the less wealthy who can't afford these things in the first place. One might try to placate their conscience by buying indulgences in the form of donations to climate causes but this doesn't really work.
Even what's commonly thought to be the biggest elephant in the room, "having kids is the worst thing you can do for the environment", is all but a sibling of the "making things is extremely bad" elephant, as the former is bad only because of the latter. If youre raising your kids in the woods living off the land like hunter-gatherers, or if you're raising them at the wealth level of the average Sierra Leonean child, having one isn't bad for the environment all.
Yeah, I did debate not including that part. I think I would elaborate by saying…
Saving the earth isn’t profitable for companies in the business of making consumer products (in most cases).
But for companies that make essential sustainable products/technologies and services like wind farms, or various green technologies, or electric car infrastructure, or waste-to-energy plants, or recycling plants, or any number of things we will need to reach net-0 carbon, there will be a lot of jobs and profit to be made while also advancing humanity and helping solve this big problem.
The flawed premise is that synthetic clothing significantly contributes to microplastic pollution, particularly in the ocean. Plastic pollution in the ocean comes primarily from fishing gear like nets, debris unintentionally released by major storms and wave events, and countries that use rivers leading to the ocean as primary waste disposal. If you want to make a difference to plastic pollution, advocate for sustainable fishing practices, end shipping waste overseas for fake recycling (Patagonia really recycling helps this), and support programs to establish waste collection and disposal in countries that don't have it.
Standard sewage treatment processes also capture most microplastic with the solid waste, if you live somewhere with sewage treatment.
I was stunned to read that, in the UK, after carefully separating out the microplastics with the solid waste, that waste is then... spread on farmland as fertiliser, microplastics and all.
>In the UK, of the sewage sludge screened out by treatment works, 87% is sent to farms. The microplastics so carefully removed from wastewater by the treatment process are then spread across the land in the sewage sludge the water companies sell to farmers as fertiliser.
Patagonia also makes clothing from recyled furs such as wool, what's your point? This is of course way better for the environment than virgin wool because...you know why..
The short of it is that all product manufacturing has an impact on the environment, and they are investing in minimizing their impact over time.
Something they note is that the biggest way to reduce impact is to create longer lasting and high quality products, because the less frequently you need to buy something the less pollution you create.
I don't think Patagonia is lying, why do you think this ?
They make very high quality clothing which lasts a long time, mostly out of recycled polyester, which is of course better than making more sources of microplastics ?
On the other hand, I purchased a "synchilla" top, it was absolutely ridiculous how much polyester fiber it shed, like absolutely crazy, I was vacuuming my house constantly. In the end it did stop, but it was ridiculously bad. I should've sent it back.
I was under the impression that the primary sources of ocean plastics were large usually Asian cities without proper waste management effectively dumping significant portions of their trash in rivers and the ocean as well as ocean fishing waste.
Sure some plastics get into natural water sources from clothes washing, but how much of an issue is this actually compared to other sources?
"I'm not going to spill all the beans right now. But what I can say is that we are going to move to, just, to truly massive scale. Scale that no company has ever achieved in the history of humanity. And that has to happen in order to transition the world to sustainable energy."
"There is going to be a dedicated robot taxi that is going to look quite futuristic"
"The Tesla robot Optimus, this is, I think Optimis will obsolete what an economy even means. So it will be able to, basically anything humans dont' want to do, optimus will do it. It's going to be an age of abundance."
"It's maybe hard to imagine it, but as you see Optimus develop... It's really going to transform the world, event to a degree greater than the cars"
"And I think we have a shot of being in production, for version one of Optimus, hopefully next year."
"Cybertruck is coming next year, we will be in production with Cybertruck next year, we will be in production with the roadster, and with Semi. ...This year is all about scaling out, and then next year there is going to be a massive new wave of products."
My go-to test search term is: "grass-fed beef restaurant in sf"
You do much better than Google (Google will always include "Top 10 Best Grass Fed Organic Steak in San Francisco, CA" from Yelp and then link to places that don't have Grass-fed beef options.)
Where most of the results on Google are not correct. They are mostly articles about Steaks (and a few actual restaurants that serve grass-fed beef, so that is good). Actually, FYI your results don't include these restaurants. eg. It would be nice if this Google result showed up in your results:
"SF / SOMA - Belcampo
We source grass-fed and finished, pasture-raised meats directly from our own climate positive CA farms and seasonal vegetables from local farms."
As you point out #1 organic link on G is Yelp. They currently block all but G, Bing and Yahoo! - we'll get in touch with them again. https://www.yelp.com/robots.txt
What year will GTP be able to take an app written in Swift/SwiftUI and output a spectacular Android translation? 3-years? 5-years? 10-years?
This is an interesting benchmark because it is a very difficult problem, however:
GTP has both everything it needs to do this without needing a fundamental improvement to the core of GTP (this process is more of a science than art) and using automated UI testing GTP can check if its solution worked.
Thus this challenge is in the realm of what GTP already is, however, once it can do this it will have massive implications for how software is built.
It's hard enough for people to faithfully port an application. People who participate and live in the world that makes up our reality. Leaving this up to an AI will at best flood us with low quality junk. At worst it's actively harmful.
Maybe he should try to sell the service as an API to search engines. E.g. I just tried the question "what's the best headache medicine" on the front show hn article: Andi https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30832589 and the result was "the best medicine is what your doctor subscribes you"
My first job as a UX designer was at a company named Mindybody.
You might not have heard of it, however, they are the world’s largest provider of scheduling software for Yoga studios (they process billions of dollars in sales every year).
I was their first designer and I redesigned their mobile apps and tablet point-of-sale apps (both are modern and decently well designed native apps), however, even today Mindbody still uses most of the stuff in this article for their web experience! It hasn’t changed since they built it in 2008.
Here is an example (close the ad for the mobile app to see the site):
Every time I apply for a job I worry they will think this is my work. [1]
[1] Technically I did design this desktop mobile app. The very first job I had was to adjust the colors and font sizes and replace out gifs on these pages (but the engineers and myself were not allowed to replace any of the underlying html/tables or the VB script that powers — besides a few minor tweaks).
Here is an overview of all the features + screenshots: https://twitter.com/Chris_Smeder/status/1671565267145748480?...
1. Component playground
2. Redlining
3. Links to github in components
4. React mode
5. https://animaapp.com plugin will build the component for you...
6. Tasks from Jira and Linear in Figma
7. Figma in VS code
8. Autocomplete fill in code when you select a layer
FYI: To learn more about Dev mode, check out the live (free) workshop from Figma at 2pm PST https://config.figma.com/agenda?d=day-2
And here is the keynote where the announcement preview was shown https://youtube.com/watch?v=-44qrQDnLMM