I've avoided the restaurant-QR-code deal so far. They don't have a menu I can read? I walk out.

Do you still leave if you’ve gone out to eat with someone else?

I think the easy play in that situation is to ask that someone else to show the menu to you

That situation sounds like fun! You let your friend(s) pick something for you. This frees you to do more spontaneous things and keep the social energy flowing. I've personally done this even when there was a printed menu and eating wasn't the point.

I think people need to really lighten up sometimes.

Good luck doing this with any romantic partner.

I'd say you're auditioning to be my new mom anyway.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with asking my partner to choose something for me?

Am I supposed to get upset with what they choose? I'm not saying I would leave. I'm saying I would stay and let someone else pick something for me to eat.

In that case, I could just read it off of their phone

Nah; reading it off the phone is the whole thing I'm trying to avoid. Doesn't matter who's phone.

I've been fairly successful at avoiding spots like that myself, also by just walking out. But its completely impractical if you're meeting up with (multiple) people.

It's just a matter of developing some self control. Be conscious about when you really need your phone (using it to pay or as your ticket) vs using is to pass time (doom scrolling X or HN)

It certainly is when you only look at the social media aspect of it. But always carrying a phone with you also brings an availability aspect with it. I know that saying "develop some self control" is usually a well intended advice, but it is very challenging for some people considering they are carrying their "trigger" basically everywhere.

My phone is always on silent mode. As is, AFAIK, the phone of all my friends.

Same. I also lay my phone face down if it's out of my pocket.

You can puy the phone in silent mode and put it in your bag. I'm not blind to how addictive these blavk rectangles are but they're not the One Ring. The can be used like a tool then put back in their box.

I don't see any reason you need to continue using your phone once boarded. But yes parting the home without is impractical.

Oh without the exception of the occasional ticket checks or checking a connecting train, there really is no actual reason. But as everybody knows, old habits die hard.

with a modicum of self control, you can turn off your phone when it's not needed.

As a parent of young children I've found that I need my phone on any time my children are not with me. Calls from school or day care don't always come from the same number, so I answer every call when my kids are in the care of others (but none otherwise).

Then practice keeping your phone in your pocket for increasingly long periods of time. You may need to build up to this and to develop some level of control.

Why? What happens if you don’t have it, just as parents didn’t have them for centuries?

Child care now requires parents to be readily available, especially to pick up children who are sick. A century ago, child care providers were expected to care for sick children until the parent arrived. Failure to be responsive would be a violation of the child care agreement.

Is this really true? There are millions of parents who are unreachable while working. A surgeon isn’t going to be able to leave in the middle of surgery to pick up their kid from child care.

My kid got sick at daycare one time when I was over an hour away. They just had to stay there while I worked my way back.

It happens, and it is handled normally.

I don't think that's a counter example. Our day care requested sick kids to be picked up within an hour. A single late pickup of a sick kid due to traffic/distance would be handled normally. An unreachable parent who turns off their phone and is extremely delayed, especially on multiple occasions is a very different thing.

When we looked at in-home child care, one of the options was a nanny who would care for kids even when the kids were sick. So I'm sure the rapid-pickup-of-sick-kids policy isn't universal. However, our day care had that policy and we made sure we knew who was "on-call" to get kids when important meetings or work travel impacted our availability.

easier for some brains than others, no? It's a sad loss of agency (for those whom it matters) to not be able to make such a simple choice to control the environmental conditions they are weak to

but i am genuinely glad for people who find that level of self-control readily accessible, that's just not me.

There's some interesting implications around the "default mode network" that's worth thinking about, and the sort of world we might be inadvertently bending toward [building] when everyone is constantly struggling to engage internal control mechanisms and depleting their ability to do other unconscious sorts of processing: https://archive.is/fYqtB

Humans are not rational. Even if you are 99% of the time, with a smartphone in your pocket there's a good chance you will use it for your emotional 1% within 2hours (and unravel). Read Rutger Bregman's goal for 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jan/04/lifes-t...

The problem with the reliance on self control is the self control. You have it or you don't. While I generally agree just exercising pure self control may be a viable strategy for some, it does not work for everyone. Particularly people with ADHD do have a tendency to be easily captured by screens.

I've personally struggled with adherence to my reduce screen time goals and while exercising more self control has helped, making active choices about my environment did help a lot more. And I like it that way, and I hate to see these choices be torpedoed all the time

> You have it or you don't.

To quote the Gorillaz:

> That's a fallacy

Self-control is not a "have it or don't" thing. It can be developed and exercised, often simply by trying and failing, and then trying again (like any exercise!).

I'm not saying it's not harder for some people than others. I'm also not saying that it isn't harder to exercise on some circumstances than others. However, it's absolutely not a binary thing, and it is achievable, in some form, for anyone.

It's also about building systems to help with self control. Turning alerts off would be one. Leaving the phone in another room for longer periods of time is another.

You don't have to leave your phone at home to be free of distractions. You can restrict your phone instead. I'm just a happy user, see techlockdown.com.

Their marketing is geared towards the p*rnography addiction crowd but from my own experience, it works equally well for those easily distracted by screens (I have ADHD).

Get two phones. One for carrying around, lock it down 100% with parental controls against all distractions. The other one unlocked.

Parental controls are underrated.

I'm thinking more and more of doing that, but prompted by the fact that the phone is a second-factor authenticator for so many things. I really don't want to lose that phone. I should just leave it home and carry another one just for urgent stuff.

I've thought about doing that, but it seems to require multiple Google accounts - one for the "child" and one for the "parent", which is hard to achieve without also having multiple SIM cards with different phone numbers that can be used for the account registration. I assume the process is designed to be full of friction to prevent people from freeing themselves of the addiction.

You don't need multiple SIM cards; you can just create new Google accounts. I have my main google account set as the child of a different account and it works great. But the set up was somewhat annoying, took me a couple hours.

I've been postponing writing a guide on how to set this up for a while, but I think I'm motivated to do it now, I'll try to have something up by the 8th here https://tim2othy.github.io/ws/screen-time/, maybe useful for you.

It's important to challenge that assumption.

If QR codes for menus just ask at the counter.

Ours do the same but I just ask and are normally happy to talk. Personally I think the staff enjoy it as they get a few minutes of talk time rather than rush rush next order.

Right, the real test is knowing your device is tucked in the pocket and completely ignoring it. At first it might be hard, but completely doable. Before I start my drive I put my non-peered-to-vehicle phone in my pocket, and it ceases to exist while I drive. Similarly it can be done in any other situation; in this case, a coffee shop.

There is no need to leave it behind, just having the right usage control over it would suffice.

I can't open the exterior doors of my apartment without an app (despite having an option for RFID dongles. they heavily advise against it)

At least I need my apple watch with cellular enabled so I can dial myself in.

> our environment is increasingly build on the assumption that we carry a smartphone with us at any given time.

This is so true! Surprised how many commenters are saying "just have self control" etc - a phone is close to essential for a lot of services in a city.

I'd be super interested in tips people have to avoid the psychological impact phones have when they do have to take them with them. A lot of phones have "relax" or "do not disturb" modes - curious if that actually works for anyone?

I limit the time I can spend on apps that distract me. I can use youtube, twitter, etc. for a combined 30 minutes, then my time is up, and I can only use essential apps (whatsapp, calendar, notes). On iPhones it's super easy to set up rules like these, using the screen time manager, and then giving the pin to a friend who only gives it to you if you need to change the settings. On android it's not as easy but solutions also exist.

It's difficult for apps like chrome that are distracting but also useful, I personally also limit chrome, if this means I can't look something up so be it, it's worth it for me.

Why more people aren't doing this is one of the main things that confuses me. People are constantly complaining about using their phone too much, but they don't just do this. I guess I'm an extreme outlier in terms of how willing I am to restrict the actions of my future self.

> "relax" or "do not disturb" modes - curious if that actually works for anyone?

Ever since I've owned a smartphone, they have been on "do not disturb" 24/7. People that know me know they won't reach me directly, but that I will call them back eventually. I do have a couple of voice calls every day; I schedule them ahead of time based on my own actions, and set an alarm to take out the phone.

I am typically involved in something and I don't want to be disturbed during it; it may just be thinking, or reading, or actually talking to a human being present with me; why would I ever want to be disturbed? I only check my phone when I want to actively perform some task with it anyway, e.g. to look at maps, and then I put it away again. I don't mind carrying it around and needing to use it increasingly for tickets and such. I do not experience this as "self control". I don't have the urge to take out my wallet or keys or umbrella unless I need them either. Why would I.

I typically (also) carry a paper book to read on public transport or in cafés.

I fairly often go out with just my Garmin watch and an ereader (Boox 6”, which is just about pocketable).

I can sync music to it and use it for contactless payments, which is just about enough.

It’s possible to do a bit more but it’s more basic than an Apple Watch as a smartphone alternative (but much better for everything I want it for), and as I mostly use it for sports tracking and being phoneless, I haven’t set any other apps up.

Surely you can turn your phone off when you get to the cafe, and leave it off for half an hour?