Who Else Is Bucking the Smartphone Trend?

[kphoger]

At a local sandwich shop I saw a 2 year old working on a smartphone.  That was scary.

Did the 2 year old at least make your order correctly?

The child belonged to an employee instead of being one.

What kind of work were they doing then?

Being a sandwich shop, let's see if you have the sense to figure it out Scott.

It was probably copy-editing work, and the child was removing instances of dangling modifiers.   

[hotdogPi]

At a local sandwich shop I saw a 2 year old working on a smartphone.  That was scary.

Did the 2 year old at least make your order correctly?

The child belonged to an employee instead of being one.

Rick

What kind of work were they doing then?

Being a sandwich shop, let's see if you have the sense to figure it out Scott.

Rick

Humour (Commonwealth English) or humor (American English; see spelling differences) is the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humours (Latin: humor, "body fluid"), controlled human health and emotion.

People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. Most people are able to experience humour–be amused, smile or laugh at something funny (such as a pun or joke)–and thus are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour inducing it to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational. Though ultimately decided by personal taste, the extent to which a person finds something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context. For example, young children may favour slapstick such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or the Tom and Jerry cartoons, whose physical nature makes it accessible to them. By contrast, more sophisticated forms of humour such as satire require an understanding of its social meaning and context, and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience.

I don't see any humo(u)r here (other than kphoger, which came after your post). An sandwich shop employee's work should not be dependent on what a 2 year old does, and I can't imagine what the 2 year old would be doing, anyway. I'm just confused.

[webny99]

At a local sandwich shop I saw a 2 year old working on a smartphone.  That was scary.

Did the 2 year old at least make your order correctly?

The child belonged to an employee instead of being one.

What kind of work were they doing then?

Being a sandwich shop, let's see if you have the sense to figure it out Scott.

Humour (Commonwealth English) or humor (American English; see spelling differences) is the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. ...

I don't see any humo(u)r here (other than kphoger, which came after your post). An sandwich shop employee's work should not be dependent on what a 2 year old does, and I can't imagine what the 2 year old would be doing, anyway. I'm just confused.

Scott's original post, in bold above, was presumably a joke, intended as humor.

It stems from two possible interpretations of the phrase "working on a smartphone". I interpreted it as simply "using", not "fulfilling a task for an employer". It's still unclear which one was actually meant.

[Rothman]

At a local sandwich shop I saw a 2 year old working on a smartphone.  That was scary.

Did the 2 year old at least make your order correctly?

The child belonged to an employee instead of being one.

Rick

What kind of work were they doing then?

Being a sandwich shop, let's see if you have the sense to figure it out Scott.

Rick

Humour (Commonwealth English) or humor (American English; see spelling differences) is the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humours (Latin: humor, "body fluid"), controlled human health and emotion.

People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. Most people are able to experience humour–be amused, smile or laugh at something funny (such as a pun or joke)–and thus are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour inducing it to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational. Though ultimately decided by personal taste, the extent to which a person finds something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context. For example, young children may favour slapstick such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or the Tom and Jerry cartoons, whose physical nature makes it accessible to them. By contrast, more sophisticated forms of humour such as satire require an understanding of its social meaning and context, and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience.

I don't see any humo(u)r here (other than kphoger, which came after your post). An sandwich shop employee's work should not be dependent on what a 2 year old does, and I can't imagine what the 2 year old would be doing, anyway. I'm just confused.

Now I'm seeing humor.

[kphoger]

Just remember, everyone:  There's no u in humor.

Oh, wait...

[kkt]

I have a flipphone.  I only have it in case I'm late or worse and need to call someone.  I do all my computing on a laptop, usually at home plugged into a large screen, full sized keyboard, etc.

It freaks me out - well, it did, pre-Covid - to look out at a crowd of people in a restaurant or public square and seeing every single person glued to their phone and oblivious to what is really going on around them.  I see them running into each other or fixed objects...  I don't object to the concept of a smart phone but it seems to become obsessive very quickly.

[ZLoth]

Seriously? All kids under 18 can't have unrestricted access and need their parents to verify all contacts and apps? I had a girlfriend when I was 16, should I have gotten approval for that when I wanted to text or call her? Or the many other friends I was making in high school?

I think 13 is a much more appropriate age to draw the line at for unrestricted access. Entering high school just makes sense to me.

Also, unrestricted access doesn't mean kids should be able to do whatever they want. I obviously wouldn't want my kids finding porn or giving out addresses to random people online. It just means that they're at an age where it should be "Everything is allowed except..." instead of "Everything is banned except..."

Edit: I will add though that you're correct in saying smartphone usage is a privilege, not a right. Parents still have jurisdiction and don't have to oblige their teenagers whether it be for financial or other reasons.

Ultimately, that's going to be a judgment call on the parents part on what privileges are granted and have to be earned. After all, it is the parent's job to raise their kid to be responsible and productive members of society.

[Roadgeekteen]

Seriously? All kids under 18 can't have unrestricted access and need their parents to verify all contacts and apps? I had a girlfriend when I was 16, should I have gotten approval for that when I wanted to text or call her? Or the many other friends I was making in high school?

I think 13 is a much more appropriate age to draw the line at for unrestricted access. Entering high school just makes sense to me.

Also, unrestricted access doesn't mean kids should be able to do whatever they want. I obviously wouldn't want my kids finding porn or giving out addresses to random people online. It just means that they're at an age where it should be "Everything is allowed except..." instead of "Everything is banned except..."

Edit: I will add though that you're correct in saying smartphone usage is a privilege, not a right. Parents still have jurisdiction and don't have to oblige their teenagers whether it be for financial or other reasons.

Ultimately, that's going to be a judgment call on the parents part on what privileges are granted and have to be earned. After all, it is the parent's job to raise their kid to be responsible and productive members of society.

Obviously, but doing the super restrictive thing would put you in the top 1% of most strict parents.

[ZLoth]

At the time of the event, I can click on the location and use my phone's navigation to find the best route.

Any roadgeek should strongly disagree that your phone can tell you the "best" route.  Fastest, maybe.  Best, no.

Depends. Am I traveling to work or to a specific destination to arrive by a certain time? Then fastest is the best route. Am I driving just for fun or to get out of my home? Then the most scenic is the best route.

When I moved to the DFW area just over two years ago for a job relocation, I was totally unfamiliar with the area, having never been there before. For the first several months, I was using the GPS for _everything_. Once I gained familiarity with the area, I used it less and less. A recent weekend trip with my mother to a small-town restaurant had Google Maps suggesting two routes. I took the slower route to the restaurant, and the faster route to get home.

[JoePCool14]

Seriously? All kids under 18 can't have unrestricted access and need their parents to verify all contacts and apps? I had a girlfriend when I was 16, should I have gotten approval for that when I wanted to text or call her? Or the many other friends I was making in high school?

I think 13 is a much more appropriate age to draw the line at for unrestricted access. Entering high school just makes sense to me.

Also, unrestricted access doesn't mean kids should be able to do whatever they want. I obviously wouldn't want my kids finding porn or giving out addresses to random people online. It just means that they're at an age where it should be "Everything is allowed except..." instead of "Everything is banned except..."

Edit: I will add though that you're correct in saying smartphone usage is a privilege, not a right. Parents still have jurisdiction and don't have to oblige their teenagers whether it be for financial or other reasons.

Ultimately, that's going to be a judgment call on the parents part on what privileges are granted and have to be earned. After all, it is the parent's job to raise their kid to be responsible and productive members of society.

That's why I added my edit at the end. Parents are the ones who decide. But I'm just saying, if I didn't have the ability to merely communicate with friends during high school, I would have done nothing social at all, and that would have been harmful in it of itself.

[kphoger]

When I moved to the DFW area just over two years ago for a job relocation, I was totally unfamiliar with the area, having never been there before. For the first several months, I was using the GPS for _everything_. Once I gained familiarity with the area, I used it less and less. A recent weekend trip with my mother to a small-town restaurant had Google Maps suggesting two routes. I took the slower route to the restaurant, and the faster route to get home.

Meanwhile, I've never had a sat-nav device in my car.  Don't need one, don't want one.

[kkt]

When I moved to the DFW area just over two years ago for a job relocation, I was totally unfamiliar with the area, having never been there before. For the first several months, I was using the GPS for _everything_. Once I gained familiarity with the area, I used it less and less. A recent weekend trip with my mother to a small-town restaurant had Google Maps suggesting two routes. I took the slower route to the restaurant, and the faster route to get home.

Meanwhile, I've never had a sat-nav device in my car.  Don't need one, don't want one.

Likewise.  If I'm going somewhere unfamiliar, I look at google maps before leaving and sketch the route on paper.  I take the paper with me, but usually remember where I'm going from sketching it.

[JayhawkCO]

I obviously don't care what others do re: their phone, but this thread is just kind of comical to me.  It's very much parallel to automotive technology over the years.

"I don't need a radio in my car."
"I can lock my own doors."
"I can roll up my window for myself."
"I can adjust my own rear view mirror with my hand."
"I don't need cruise control because I like to have more control over the car."

I respect kphoger for wanting to put his smartphone down for family reasons, but it seems like a lot of the posts in the thread are obstinance for the sake of obstinance.  I know you can use your laptop for directions and write them down, but convenience isn't a bad thing.

Chris

[NE2]

(ok boomer)

I was a slow adopter, and didn't have a smartphone until about three years ago. But it didn't help that until my fifth eye surgery four years ago, I couldn't read a smartphone screen without a magnifying glass.

http://hadley.edu/workshops/listen-with-voiceover-series
http://hadley.edu/workshops/listen-with-talkback-series

[hbelkins]

I obviously don't care what others do re: their phone, but this thread is just kind of comical to me.  It's very much parallel to automotive technology over the years.

"I don't need a radio in my car."
"I can lock my own doors."
"I can roll up my window for myself."
"I can adjust my own rear view mirror with my hand."
"I don't need cruise control because I like to have more control over the car."

I respect kphoger for wanting to put his smartphone down for family reasons, but it seems like a lot of the posts in the thread are obstinance for the sake of obstinance.  I know you can use your laptop for directions and write them down, but convenience isn't a bad thing.

Chris

I disagree with some of the automotive analogies, especially the one about power windows. If your battery dies and your car windows are down, good luck getting them rolled up so you can keep rain from blowing in. Not to mention if you have to abandon your car somewhere and locking it (thankfully, you can still lock a car manually if there's no power) would be ineffective in stopping someone from reaching in and helping themselves to whatever might be in the car.

I like cruise control, and a radio, but the rest are unnecessary options that have been foisted upon the consumer. Because of my ongoing Saturn Vue vehicle issues, I'm driving a 1990 Chevy pickup truck with cruise and a crappy radio, but with manual windows, door locks, and mirrors. I'm not complaining.

As far as kids and phones go, why do they need smartphones? Give them a cheap "dumb phone" so they can stay in touch -- call if they're running late, call if they need to be picked up somewhere, call for help if they're driving and have a wreck or breakdown.

For years, my wife and I had plain cellphones. Voice only. No texting. For awhile, we had her sister on our plan and got her a plain phone. We specifically told her, "no texting," as we did not have a texting plan and at the time, texts cost something like 10 cents each. One month, the bill was significantly higher than usual. Upon inspection, we found out that there were a lot of texts on her phone. We finally had to discontinue her service because she insisted on texting. Now, texting is standard on smartphones with full keyboards (and in fact, iPhones don't communicate via text/SMS, but by iMessage) and I'd much rather send or receive a text (or an email, for that matter) than have to talk to someone on the phone.

[JayhawkCO]

I disagree with some of the automotive analogies, especially the one about power windows. If your battery dies and your car windows are down, good luck getting them rolled up so you can keep rain from blowing in. Not to mention if you have to abandon your car somewhere and locking it (thankfully, you can still lock a car manually if there's no power) would be ineffective in stopping someone from reaching in and helping themselves to whatever might be in the car.

Obviously there are times where the technology can be a disadvantage.  I haven't had a landline in 20 years, but obviously if the power goes out and my phone isn't charged, I'm at a disadvantage.  I meant the newer technologies invoking this "get off my lawn" type attitude from some people.  You don't have to be an early adopter that has every new gizmo to understand that new things often make things more convenient overall.  It's this resistance for the sake of resistance that I find amusing.

Chris

[Ned Weasel]

I disagree with some of the automotive analogies, especially the one about power windows. If your battery dies and your car windows are down, good luck getting them rolled up so you can keep rain from blowing in. Not to mention if you have to abandon your car somewhere and locking it (thankfully, you can still lock a car manually if there's no power) would be ineffective in stopping someone from reaching in and helping themselves to whatever might be in the car.

I like cruise control, and a radio, but the rest are unnecessary options that have been foisted upon the consumer. Because of my ongoing Saturn Vue vehicle issues, I'm driving a 1990 Chevy pickup truck with cruise and a crappy radio, but with manual windows, door locks, and mirrors. I'm not complaining.

My former car, a 1999 Buick Century, which overall was a very fun car to drive (it's faster than it looks--maybe you'd call it "slow car fast") taught me to hate power windows.  They broke all the time, and they'd always cost at least $300 or $400 to fix, depending on which part broke.  And each of them has two parts: a motor and a regulator (you probably already know this).  If the motor breaks while the window is up, hey that's not so bad; it just means you can't roll it down.  But if the regulator breaks, you're SOL, because that's what holds the window up!  Seriously, car companies, what's so bad about having to turn a crank to put the windows up and down?

As far as kids and phones go, why do they need smartphones? Give them a cheap "dumb phone" so they can stay in touch -- call if they're running late, call if they need to be picked up somewhere, call for help if they're driving and have a wreck or breakdown.

Agreed.

For years, my wife and I had plain cellphones. Voice only. No texting. For awhile, we had her sister on our plan and got her a plain phone. We specifically told her, "no texting," as we did not have a texting plan and at the time, texts cost something like 10 cents each. One month, the bill was significantly higher than usual. Upon inspection, we found out that there were a lot of texts on her phone. We finally had to discontinue her service because she insisted on texting. Now, texting is standard on smartphones with full keyboards (and in fact, iPhones don't communicate via text/SMS, but by iMessage) and I'd much rather send or receive a text (or an email, for that matter) than have to talk to someone on the phone.

Well, I guess I won't be texting with iPhone users, unless iMessage converts its messages to SMS for non-iPhone users.

Obviously there are times where the technology can be a disadvantage.  I haven't had a landline in 20 years, but obviously if the power goes out and my phone isn't charged, I'm at a disadvantage.  I meant the newer technologies invoking this "get off my lawn" type attitude from some people.  You don't have to be an early adopter that has every new gizmo to understand that new things often make things more convenient overall.  It's this resistance for the sake of resistance that I find amusing.

Is it resistance for the sake of resistance, or is it resistance for the sake of: Why the **** should I be compelled to pay $150 for a full-blown computer that goes obsolete in a few years and $50 per month on top of my already existing phone bill for data?  To me, the convenience of Google-on-the-Go isn't worth the cost, especially when it's something I never wanted in the first place!

[JayhawkCO]

Well, I guess I won't be texting with iPhone users, unless iMessage converts its messages to SMS for non-iPhone users.

It already does.  That's why you get those cool texts that say "Loved: We need cheese from the store."

Chris

[Ned Weasel]

It already does.  That's why you get those cool texts that say "Loved: We need cheese from the store."

Good to know!  If you're interested, I responded to your earlier post as an addendum to my above post.  (I try not to make multiple consecutive posts when I can avoid it.)

[kphoger]

Obviously there are times where the technology can be a disadvantage.  I haven't had a landline in 20 years, but obviously if the power goes out and my phone isn't charged, I'm at a disadvantage.  I meant the newer technologies invoking this "get off my lawn" type attitude from some people.  You don't have to be an early adopter that has every new gizmo to understand that new things often make things more convenient overall.  It's this resistance for the sake of resistance that I find amusing.

Is it resistance for the sake of resistance, or is it resistance for the sake of: Why the **** should I be compelled to pay $150 for a full-blown computer that goes obsolete in a few years and $50 per month on top of my already existing phone bill for data?  To me, the convenience of Google-on-the-Go isn't worth the cost, especially when it's something I never wanted in the first place!

Right.  Yeah, having a smartphone is more convenient.  But, honestly, it's only really convenient a small number of times.  So, to me, what's amusing is people who think they couldn't survive without one.

[JayhawkCO]

It already does.  That's why you get those cool texts that say "Loved: We need cheese from the store."

Good to know!  If you're interested, I responded to your earlier post as an addendum to my above post.  (I try not to make multiple consecutive posts when I can avoid it.)

I understand the not wanting to spend extra money on it for sure, a point I will eagerly concede.  But unless I'm reading the tone of the messages incorrectly, it seems a lot of the posters are less concerned with the cost than they are the future coming more quickly than they'd like. 

Chris

[JayhawkCO]

Right.  Yeah, having a smartphone is more convenient.  But, honestly, it's only really convenient a small number of times.  So, to me, what's amusing is people who think they couldn't survive without one.

I just use mine for a million different things.  I could survive for sure, but I wouldn't have navigation.  I wouldn't have music when I run.  I wouldn't be able to see something on sale at the grocery store and then Google recipes for inspiration of what to serve with it.  I wouldn't be able to live bet on sports when I'm not at home.  I wouldn't be able to get sports alerts for a game I'm not home to watch.  I'd have to go to the bank to deposit checks.  I'd have to carry a camera with me when I travel.  I'd have to buy more ink for my printer to print boarding passes.  I would spent more money on my insurance premiums because my Garmin watch app wouldn't be connected.  I couldn't listen to podcasts in the car.  I couldn't use Uber/Lyft.  And not to be TMI, but taking a crap would become a lot more boring again.

Chris

[kphoger]

I'd have to carry a camera with me when I travel.

Why?  My dumbphone has a camera.  Don't a lot of them?  It's been a long time since I've had a phone without a camera–definitely longer ago than when I first got a smartphone.

And not to be TMI, but taking a crap would become a lot more boring again.

Saw a meme or a Facebook post once that said "I'd rather be without toilet paper than without my phone in the bathroom."



As for the other stuff, it either doesn't apply to me or I don't really care.

Kind of confused what you mean about insurance premiums, though.  Then again, I have neither a Garmin nor a watch.

[jeffandnicole]

It already does.  That's why you get those cool texts that say "Loved: We need cheese from the store."

Good to know!  If you're interested, I responded to your earlier post as an addendum to my above post.  (I try not to make multiple consecutive posts when I can avoid it.)

I understand the not wanting to spend extra money on it for sure, a point I will eagerly concede.  But unless I'm reading the tone of the messages incorrectly, it seems a lot of the posters are less concerned with the cost than they are the future coming more quickly than they'd like. 

Chris

That's what a lot of it comes down to.  They like certain modern conveniences.  But they draw some sort of squiggly imaginary line as to what is good and bad. 

Everyone here has an electronic device.  Some that have computers say they don't have any reason for a smart phone.  Some with smart phones don't have any reason to have a computer.  Some have both.  But I can almost guarantee you, we probably don't have anyone here that don't have either, and are going to a public location with public electronic devices to use this message board.  And even if they did, they still embrace a certain level of technology; they just don't own it.

[hbelkins]

It already does.  That's why you get those cool texts that say "Loved: We need cheese from the store."

Good to know!  If you're interested, I responded to your earlier post as an addendum to my above post.  (I try not to make multiple consecutive posts when I can avoid it.)

Agreed. Somehow, the iPhone associates a phone number with an AppleID and if the number being messaged belongs to an iPhone, it's sent as an iMessage and shows up in blue and is sent as data.

A number not belonging to an iPhone is recognized as such, and texts are sent as SMS messages over the voice network, and they show up in green.

iMessages also work on iPads, iPod Touches, and newer versions of the Mac OS.

It's possible for an iPhone user to text another iPhone user if there is a wi-fi signal but no cell service, but not for that iPhone user to text someone who uses an Android or a non-smartphone that has to do the 'tap tap tap" over and over again to spell out a word on the 0-9 keyboard.