The keyword for the problem you're talking about is the "long tailpipe theory." [1] I was just reading Wait But Why's article [2], which concluded that the overall greenhouse impact will still be lessened by using electric cars over internal combustion.
I didn't dig into the sources enough to conclude that it's truly a better option, but those articles are a good place to start.
I really like the use of tools that make focus the default, low-motivation option. If you're not on a Mac, Firefox has LeechBlock[1] and Chrome has StayFocusd[2]. Also, if you're on HN, there are built-in settings under your username you can use to limit how long you can access the site for every few hours.
Ironically, that's why I'm on HN now. I know I only have 15 minutes and then I won't get to use it for another few hours. :)
Have you tried setting her up with a standard user login by default? I did that with my folks and the number of computer questions seems to have gone way down.
Do you think that another danger of inconveniences is that it's easier to make an inconvenient mechanism more and more inconvenient than to start restricting something that hadn't been restricted before at all? Like having a tiny inconvenience at first somehow "reserves your right" to add more restrictions in the future?
If you haven't played any before, your first question may be: Why would I play a game made up just out of text? The IFComp is a good place to start. It really helps to what really talented people can do with the medium. Here are two worth playing:
Inform7 is a very widely used tool for making IF now (http://inform7.com/); I haven't played with it much, but from what I've seen, it does some really great stuff. It's a good way to get started writing your own games.
--
Full disclosure: My current project is a way to make CYOA from the browser. (http://adventurecow.com)
> when someone gives me the "top 5", I consider it only a trailhead; it's unlikely my top 5 would be the same.
That's a fair point. The important part, it seems, is identifying not just which books to read but why. That information would help you and I find our 20%.
Not that these are bad books (I've read a lot of them and they are quite interesting), but I think there's more value in compiling a list of the 5 most important books we should read, rather than the 30.
Of course we can learn something from reading 30 books. It'd almost be hard not to (if you chose the right genre). The problem is that, while entertaining, I'm sure a lot of us are looking at these books not just for fun, but because we want to figure out how to run our software business.
To take every software book that's imparted some little bit of insight and put it in a huge list only gives you a huge list of books to read, with no indication of which 20% of those books will give you 80% of the insight. And while some of us can digest this list in two weeks, for others it's a huge time commitment they don't have the ability to make.
I apologize for ranting, and this list does have some useful information (especially in the commentary on each book). But I get uncomfortable when I see a "Top X design articles" or "Top Y books" and the X or Y is >10. I feel like we are feeding our desire to gorge on numerically delimited information without necessarily getting substance out of it.
Apple's design reputation is so established at this point that, if they hadn't used the Golden Ratio, I suspect there would be articles titled "Why does Apple's iCloud Icon deliberately ignore the Golden Ratio?"
Something I noticed after I read your comment: The funny thing about both Starbucks and McDonalds is that, in both cases, it took an outsider who became an employee, _not a founder_, to grow the company. Two companies don't a pattern make, but it does make you wonder...
I didn't dig into the sources enough to conclude that it's truly a better option, but those articles are a good place to start.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe
[2] http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-lif...