You supposedly speak for masses and claim I am having some exceptional, unique look but you don't cite anything to support your claim.

> That's a very narrow conception if the problem—it isn't solely about being "there" for them or trying to get control over (and maintain control over) one's own addictions. The main thing that people have an issue with when they talk about kids and phone use (and TV for that matter) is addiction observed in the kids themselves. It's absolutely about using one's own phone less while they're around as a means of quashing overexposure.

> You can show as much genuine interest in them as you want, and it doesn't change anything, because whether the kids feel like the parent is "there for them" not the problem that a parent is is already genuinely interested in them is concerned about and trying to address.

I grew up with my father who was really hip. He didn't use his smartphone much. Sometimes, he did this weird thing. Out of nowhere, he'd comment about something seemingly unrelated to the discussion. I didn't understand what he was yapping at. At first, I thought he was talking to mom. One time, I noticed he did it when mom was upstairs. At one point, I thought dad was having imaginary friends. Turns out, dad had this smart ring he'd use to record notes. One day, the ring was gone. Gone from his finger. I guess it broke, or something.

IOW, replacing one tool with another, you can't fool people. If social media distracts you, remove it from your smartphone, or limit the exposure to it. My wife when she is done with cooking, regularly uses her smartphone after that when we are eating. Usually to fill in about groceries. We're not overly strict on that, and we don't expect our kids to be strict on it when they got a smartphone later on. But it is about proportion. Using it for a short amount of time is perfectly possible. If you want to have a 'no tech' rule during dinner, fine, but then also smart rings. If you want to allow certain specific tasks, a technical barrier like a smart ring versus a smartphone can work, yes. But you can also decide to limit yourself whilst using your smartphone. IMO that starts with uninstalling all kind of BS apps you don't need, and removing notifications you don't require. Either way, the bottom line is this: the ring doesn't solve the issue of distractions on smartphones. It tries to mitigate the issue. So whenever you do use your smartphone, you are still suffering from the issue.

> "Not much" except that the fingers that are attached to the hand that's attached to the wrist where you're wearing your watch certainly aren't capable of reaching back to press a button on said watch.

This is true, it isn't hands-free, hands-free is superior. Although a device on the bike also works well. You can buy such a tool right now to attach your smartphone to your bike, and it'll last for more than two years. It is a matter of moving your hand once to the other one to enable the mic. A Pebble, too, you can replace the battery yourself and I absolutely despise all these smartwatches where you cannot.