Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Kids as Young as 7 are Finding Ingenious Ways Around Apple's Screen Time Controls

posted by mrpg on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:33AM   Printer-friendly

chromas (from IRC) writes:

Kids as young as 7 are finding ingenious ways around Apple's screen time controls:

[...] Parents can use the feature to impose restrictions on their children's device usage — or so they thought. One Reddit shared the story of how their seven-year-old had gamed the feature, sparking a chat that has nearly 500 comments.

"When iOS 12 came out I limited my 7-year old son's screen time through the family share. For a few days I felt like he was playing a bit more than he should, but I couldn't figure out why," u/PropellerGuy said.

"Finally today, my son revealed his hack: When he runs out of screen time and his games get locked, he heads to App Store, downloads a previously installed (but later removed) game through the cloud icon, and it works without limitations!"

"What can I say," they added. "I'm not even mad. That's impressive."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Kids as Young as 7 are Finding Ingenious Ways Around Apple's Screen Time Controls | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 34 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:55PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:55PM (#740834)

    If you don't like Shakeſpere, how about period bible translations, say the KJV (James 2:15-16, original 1611 version)?

    If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of dayly foode,
    And one of you say vnto them, Depart in peace, be you warmed & filled: notwithstanding ye giue them not those things which are needfull to the body: what doth it profit?

    Or Tyndale's (not sure which revision this is, but 1530ish)?

    If a brother or a sister be naked or destitute of dayly fode
    and one of you saye vnto them: Departe in peace God sende you warmnes and fode: not withstondinge ye geve the not tho thynges which are nedfull to the body: what helpeth it the?

    Hey, we can go right back to Wycliffe (Purvey's 1395 revision), if you're down with Middle English:

    And if a brother ethir sister be nakid, and han nede of ech daies lyuelode,
    and if ony of you seie to hem, Go ye in pees, be ye maad hoot, and be ye fillid; but if ye yyuen not to hem tho thingis that ben necessarie to bodi, what schal it profite?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @04:51PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @04:51PM (#740857)
    That's another sequential plural though. This is what you do for any member of a large abstract group. Show us a case where they is used with a simple singular subject?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @12:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @12:19AM (#741120)

      A brother or a sister -- one person. That's unambiguously a singular subject. Not a brother and a sister, or every brother and sister in town one by one.