As part of my ongoing effort to share techniques for making modern devices less addictive and manipulative, here's another trick I use in addition to perpetually using Do Not Disturb on my smartphone:
My smartwatch is always in Do Not Disturb mode. It only makes noise when an alarm or timer goes off, and it never vibrates. There are no other exceptions because Wear OS apparently doesn't allow them. (I wouldn't mind getting a buzz from FitBit when it's time to move, but configuring that does not appear to be possible.)
Some might wonder why I have a smartwatch at all. It's a good question. Aside from knowing the time, I mostly use it to track my sleep. I honestly don't care about most of the other features.
edit (2025-12-14): Some time after writing this blog post, I sold the smartwatch and got a mechanical watch, which I recommend! I track my sleep using another app, and I honestly don't even need to do that. I don't need sleep tracking to know what worsens or improves my sleep.
I can become absorbed by technology like anyone else, but the nature of my absorption sometimes looks different because I work hard to make my gadgets less addictive. Over time, I'd like to share some of the techniques I use. Here's the first one, which I've mentioned before:
My phone is always in Do Not Disturb mode. I don't get any beeps or buzzes, except for emergency alerts, alarms, calendar reminders, phone calls within certain parameters (close contacts, repeat callers, etc.), and Slack messages from colleagues. I almost never need to be immediately alerted about anything else; I check my phone often enough already.
Interestingly, this isn't very easy to configure. Modern devices mostly require that we opt out of distractions, rather than opt in. Put another way, if the mode that respects our attention is called Do Not Disturb, what is the ordinary mode called?
I don't care about likes, comments, and shares. I don't care how many people subscribe to my blog.
Sounds pretty bold. Of course, it's a lie. We're all human. We all want to be liked.
I don't want those metrics to change my behavior, however. I don't want to be manipulated, however subtly, by algorithms and the faint praise of fake online friends. I'd rather be underappreciated than sell out. I'd rather be ignored than say things I don't believe.
After honing them for many years, I've finally open-sourced my dotfiles. For those unacquainted, dotfiles are small files that customize a computer and its programs, as well as a set of utilities that make day-to-day operations easier. If a computer is a workshop, dotfiles are the shelves, pegboard, and carefully crafted tools.
I've actually never thought of dotfiles that way until writing that sentence. I'm reminded of my papou's workshop, which he loved just as much, if not more. I guess his skills really do live on in me, albeit in a different form. I also have no doubt he would cry if he could read this. He was extremely sensitive and sweet, a WWII teddy bear. I inherited some of that from him.
In any case, I'm open-sourcing my dotfiles because I hope they can be useful to others. I've shared them under the MIT license, which basically means anyone can use them for any purpose as long as they give me credit. It's another departure from my past ideological support for the GPL, which enforces something like mandatory cooperation. I definitely admire and see the value in the GPL, but I don't think it makes sense for a simple project like this. Use my code! I'm just glad it may be helpful.
On the technical side, I'm really proud of my shell scripts, Bash functions, and methods of organization. I started using docopts in shell scripts about one or two months ago, and it's a real game-changer. I encourage everyone to check it out. It may even help others reuse my code.
In writing about the dangers of social media, I've encountered the objection that social media probably isn't worth worrying about because people said the same thing about the internet, television, radio, books, and so on. I think this objection is flawed for two reasons.
First, it suggests that these earlier technologies didn't cause very much harm. I disagree. The printed word continues to be an effective means of disseminating misinformation. Murderous dictators used radio to broadcast their propaganda into private homes. Television turned news into entertainment, with disastrous results that we're barely beginning to grapple with today. The internet has fostered deeply meaningful connections, but has also helped conspiracy theories flourish.
What is clickbait? Some people define clickbait as any headline, thumbnail, or similar (let's call them teasers) that is factually incorrect. I don't agree. I don't think correctness is the point. I think clickbait is any teaser that is psychologically manipulative, that uses our minds and our emotions against us to win engagement.
Here's something I never expected would happen. Apple says it plans to support RCS. Does this mean Apple is done with its dirty tricks in messaging and elsewhere? Of course not. It's a baby step in the right direction, though.
Don't get me wrong. I have a love-hate relationship with Apple. They build great products, but they also refuse to play nice with others, even admitting it's for their own selfish gain. As the article explains, software executive Craig Federighi once wrote in a private email that publishing iMessage on Android, let alone supporting an open standard, would “remove obstacle [sic] to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”
“It doesn't seem to conventional-minded people that they're conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they're right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.”
