I think that being paid is part of the thrust. If you ignore Kiki which you have bought to ruthlessly force you to stay focused, you feel bad for squandering the money. Kiki is for people so desperate that they explicitly asked for a strict master and no escape hatch anywhere.
Its $29.88/year. It is $4.99 a month, which if you pay by the month would be $60, but if you're going for a year, I don't see why you wouldn't take the 50% discount
The kind of people who are easily distracted like this are the kind of people that will be very unlikely to configure an application filter for each task. What would be immensely more useful would be a (local) AI that periodically looks at your screen, uses context clues to figure out what you're doing, and first uses social pressure to get you on track, and eventually just closes it if you keep getting distracted.
Putting the ones on the user to manage this is just adding one additional thing that requires executive function.
Hmm. The only button on the screen is ([Apple Logo] Send me a download link). When you scroll it off screen it's replaced with ([Apple Logo] Try Kiki) and a collage of macOS screenshots.
They could certainly put it in the FAQ, which is below the ([Apple Logo] Get the App) button, I don't actually disagree with you, but it is somewhat of a funny complaint to me given the actual content of the page.
Cool addiction blocker product. Also ties into a strange concept whereby something has value because you pay for it as opposed to the other way around. This idea probably generalises to any kind of self help app that people normally get for free and ignore. If you can provide enough polish to justify a luxury price tag people may invest!
Some day I want it explained to me why it's impossible to put controls on a computer. Computers follow symbolic mathematical rules, so, "you're only allowed to run this app for 30 minutes" seems like a really easy command to follow. But you cannot buy software that actually, reliably causes this to occur at any cost on any device.
It seems like there are three hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and forbidding things.
If there was an easy way for productivity apps to do that, it would also be a good way for malware to do that. It could also still be tricked, for example, by changing the system date on your device.
I bet that various niche paid software may have access controls like that.
It should not be very hard to write though, given that processes have predictable names, and executables have predictable signatures. Replacing the executable until the next time slot comes would additionally help.
Deploy a rootkit to make certain that the user cannot get rid of this software.
It might be easier and cheaper to have a dedicated device for that special thing, kept under a lock and key. Maybe the very insanity of such a setup would help reason overcome the addiction.
As a trivial application of the spec, consider that there are time-limitted trials of software. Once it's run for 30m, it'll never run again without significant intervention.
If you're the kind of person that's willing to go out of your way to invalidate the control spec rather than just abide by your own time control rules, you've got a more significant problem than you're willing to admit.
We don't need software that prevents running for 31 minutes in every 24 hour period, we need humans who are both willing and able to manage their time.
I mean, can you imagine being the kind of person that blames a piece of software for one's inability to stop using said software. Like it's somehow tiktok or youtube or android or linux or who the fuck ever's fault that you can't stop doomscrolling or gaming or gambling or whatever.
As a matter of fact, every software already supports what you're asking for. Run a script that monitors focus time and kills after a certain period if you're really so unable to simply close the software based on your own paradigm. Leave the script running and have it issue kills for the entire duration of your specification. [use=focustime/24h; while use>30m/24h, kill proc.exe].
There are already existing implementations of this that, for instance, limit a user acct to a certain amount of time per period. Imagine a library that only allows 30m/account. I just got out of an environment that only allows accts to access for a maxiumum of 15m with one sign on with a 15m cooldown. If you used it for 3 minutes and signed out, you'd have to get back in line for 15m. If you demanded using it as much as possible you would use it for 15 and wait for 15.
Does the task description influence the blocking behavior? That wasn’t clear to me— it might be that you manually configure the allow/block list and the task description is just for the user.
I made a web extension like this a while back. Called Prod, it’s a similar idea but in the browser. Feel free to use it it’s free and there are no plans to change it. Been around for years.
> We need to eat. You need to finish things. That's capitalism, baby. Also, you value things you pay for (unlike those 17 free apps you downloaded and never opened).
Huh, I think I just found some new copy text for the SAAS I'm building!
doormatt|29 days ago
>Several users have tried. None have succeeded.
But then
>What browsers does Kiki support?
>KIKI supports Chrome and Safari. Other browsers can confuse it. Stick to those two.
dopidopHN2|29 days ago
Rnonymous|29 days ago
https://selfcontrolapp.com/
Retr0id|29 days ago
dopidopHN2|29 days ago
wds|29 days ago
nine_k|29 days ago
> Will KIKI judge me for my poor time management?
> Yes. That's part of why it works.
no_wizard|29 days ago
agumonkey|29 days ago
m463|28 days ago
that's what I usually do. :)
calebm|29 days ago
reconnecting|29 days ago
idiotsecant|29 days ago
Putting the ones on the user to manage this is just adding one additional thing that requires executive function.
Artoooooor|29 days ago
furyofantares|29 days ago
They could certainly put it in the FAQ, which is below the ([Apple Logo] Get the App) button, I don't actually disagree with you, but it is somewhat of a funny complaint to me given the actual content of the page.
GZGavinZhao|29 days ago
charlie-83|29 days ago
ares623|29 days ago
It takes the same amount of effort to setup a recurring subscription stack vs a one off payment.
unknown|29 days ago
[deleted]
dzonga|29 days ago
the more I see that - the less I trust
rorylawless|29 days ago
riversflow|28 days ago
(X) Doubt
4corners4sides|27 days ago
AuthAuth|29 days ago
getnormality|29 days ago
It seems like there are three hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and forbidding things.
flexagoon|29 days ago
nine_k|29 days ago
It should not be very hard to write though, given that processes have predictable names, and executables have predictable signatures. Replacing the executable until the next time slot comes would additionally help.
Deploy a rootkit to make certain that the user cannot get rid of this software.
It might be easier and cheaper to have a dedicated device for that special thing, kept under a lock and key. Maybe the very insanity of such a setup would help reason overcome the addiction.
goodmythical|29 days ago
As a trivial application of the spec, consider that there are time-limitted trials of software. Once it's run for 30m, it'll never run again without significant intervention.
If you're the kind of person that's willing to go out of your way to invalidate the control spec rather than just abide by your own time control rules, you've got a more significant problem than you're willing to admit.
We don't need software that prevents running for 31 minutes in every 24 hour period, we need humans who are both willing and able to manage their time.
I mean, can you imagine being the kind of person that blames a piece of software for one's inability to stop using said software. Like it's somehow tiktok or youtube or android or linux or who the fuck ever's fault that you can't stop doomscrolling or gaming or gambling or whatever.
As a matter of fact, every software already supports what you're asking for. Run a script that monitors focus time and kills after a certain period if you're really so unable to simply close the software based on your own paradigm. Leave the script running and have it issue kills for the entire duration of your specification. [use=focustime/24h; while use>30m/24h, kill proc.exe].
There are already existing implementations of this that, for instance, limit a user acct to a certain amount of time per period. Imagine a library that only allows 30m/account. I just got out of an environment that only allows accts to access for a maxiumum of 15m with one sign on with a 15m cooldown. If you used it for 3 minutes and signed out, you'd have to get back in line for 15m. If you demanded using it as much as possible you would use it for 15 and wait for 15.
jachee|29 days ago
amelius|29 days ago
neilc|29 days ago
novemp|29 days ago
If I have to download a brand-new browser just to use this app, what's stopping me from switching back to Firefox to evade the blocks?
DitheringIdiot|29 days ago
prodtodolist.com if you’re interested
elliotpage|29 days ago
bluerooibos|29 days ago
> We need to eat. You need to finish things. That's capitalism, baby. Also, you value things you pay for (unlike those 17 free apps you downloaded and never opened).
Huh, I think I just found some new copy text for the SAAS I'm building!
jdlyga|29 days ago
underyx|28 days ago
paradox460|29 days ago
kerridge0|29 days ago
unknown|29 days ago
[deleted]
unknown|29 days ago
[deleted]
umitkaanusta|29 days ago