Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Story Behind F.lux

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#81

Post by Razengan »

rpgmaker wrote: post #22
verusfossa wrote: post #4

I use redshift[0] on my linux machines which I really like. Cyanogenmod has LiveDisplay natively which is practically the same thing unfortunately it works off off gps location and not manually editable lang/long. Both are really helpful. [0] http://jonls.dk/redshift/

On Linux I use the 'Negative' Compiz plugin. You can apply it on a window by window basis or desktop-wide. For both modes there are keyboard shortcuts (that's what makes it such a killer feature IMO). People find the screen weird when I enable the plugin but I'm a practical guy and this has saved my eyesight. I know you can invert colors in OSX but the effect is desktop-wide and you can't use a hotkey to enable or di…

> I know you can invert colors in OSX but the effect is desktop-wide and you can't use a hotkey to enable or disable it.

I haven't tried this myself, but I believe you could rig up something in Automator/Script Editor to toggle the inverted colors, then set up a hotkey for that service from System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Shortcuts.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#82

Post by lectrick »

zyxley wrote: post #21
laretluval wrote: post #16

I am one of the people who love the idea of f.lux. I use it and it makes my eyes feel a lot better and makes me feel sleepy at the right times. But the app itself is terribly broken, at least on El Capitan. Whenever I switch modes, the screen flashes the original blue colors---my impression is that even a few seconds of blue light can mess up melatonin production, so this is unacceptable, especially from an app that…

The issues you're talking about aren't ones I've seen anyone else complain about (and don't happen for me), so I'm wondering if there's something specific to your configuration that's affecting it.

"I couldn't be bothered to Google the problem, but based on my sample size of 1, I think your problem doesn't exist"

Thanks for that useful comment, man.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#83

Post by nikolay »

anonova wrote: post #45
laretluval wrote: post #16

I am one of the people who love the idea of f.lux. I use it and it makes my eyes feel a lot better and makes me feel sleepy at the right times. But the app itself is terribly broken, at least on El Capitan. Whenever I switch modes, the screen flashes the original blue colors---my impression is that even a few seconds of blue light can mess up melatonin production, so this is unacceptable, especially from an app that…

Note that autobrightness with f.lux is currently broken in OS X 10.11, and they suggest you to disable it: "Note for people using f.lux on El Capitan (10.11): The new version of "Automatically adjust brightness" in El Capitan seems to cause flickering with f.lux. For the moment, you'll have to turn this feature off to use f.lux. To make the fix, use System Preferences > Displays and uncheck. Occasionally, a reboot ma…

It is, unfortunately...

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#84

Post by racecar789 »

Fyi Display Link devices (which are used to dock a laptop to two monitors via a single usb cable) do not support color calibration, so flux does not work.

Found out after purchasing a usb docking station. Still fairly happy with the purchase though. Display Link is actively releasing new drivers so there is hope.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#85

Post by adsims2001 »

laretluval wrote: post #16

I am one of the people who love the idea of f.lux. I use it and it makes my eyes feel a lot better and makes me feel sleepy at the right times. But the app itself is terribly broken, at least on El Capitan. Whenever I switch modes, the screen flashes the original blue colors---my impression is that even a few seconds of blue light can mess up melatonin production, so this is unacceptable, especially from an app that…

I see the same type of problems all the time. f.lux flashes between full blue light and the filter for a few seconds whenever I connect or disconnect my external monitor from my MacBook.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#86

Post by melted »

meric wrote: post #79
izacus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still bothered me after a few weeks, specially since "automatic" setting started making my screen red at like 18:00, more than 6 hours before I usually go to sleep. It was incredibly annoying :/ Maybe I just didn't see that much benefit because I never look at screens in rooms without additional (yellowish) lighting.

I customise mine so it's not as red - just apply enough tint to match my lightbulb. Without Flux the screen feels off because every other light source from inside and outside the house has a warm tint; The screen just stands out too much. But I agree, the default setting is too much.

You should probably change your lightbulb to something like Philips Hue, and make _it_ more red.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#87

Post by irremediable »

gwern wrote: post #61
irremediable wrote: post #7

I use it, and I like it, and I think it works. But I also think they should really try to publish a paper on it, proving it works to improve e.g. people's sleep quality.

It's free and not obviously harmful and has a plausible biological rationale, but if you think it may not work, it's easy to run your own self-experiment: stick it in a little randomized script and record when you go to bed for, say, 50 days and see. That's what I did with Redshift: http://www.gwern.net/Zeo#redshiftf.lux

Fair point; more of us should imitate your attitude to these things.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#88

Post by scott_s »

gwern wrote: post #61
irremediable wrote: post #7

I use it, and I like it, and I think it works. But I also think they should really try to publish a paper on it, proving it works to improve e.g. people's sleep quality.

It's free and not obviously harmful and has a plausible biological rationale, but if you think it may not work, it's easy to run your own self-experiment: stick it in a little randomized script and record when you go to bed for, say, 50 days and see. That's what I did with Redshift: http://www.gwern.net/Zeo#redshiftf.lux

Unfortunately, that self-experiment has the problem of the subject (yourself) knowing which "treatment" you're getting. I'm not sure how to double-blind something like this, though. It may require a study where we record subjects' sleep patters, make them use a screen at night, but don't tell them that it's the screen colors that are under experiment.

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#89

Post by gwern »

scott_s wrote: post #88
gwern wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's free and not obviously harmful and has a plausible biological rationale, but if you think it may not work, it's easy to run your own self-experiment: stick it in a little randomized script and record when you go to bed for, say, 50 days and see. That's what I did with Redshift: http://www.gwern.net/Zeo#redshiftf.lux

Unfortunately, that self-experiment has the problem of the subject (yourself) knowing which "treatment" you're getting. I'm not sure how to double-blind something like this, though. It may require a study where we record subjects' sleep patters, make them use a screen at night, but don't tell them that it's the screen colors that are under experiment.

Empirically, I didn't notice and that almost screwed up the experiment; see the part where a driver change broke Redshift and I didn't notice for a month.

(As well, I would note that you may be overestimating placebo or expectancy effects here. In the meta-analyses I've seen, randomization is much more important than placebo controls.)

Re: The Story Behind F.lux

#90

Post by scott_s »

gwern wrote: post #89
scott_s wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, that self-experiment has the problem of the subject (yourself) knowing which "treatment" you're getting. I'm not sure how to double-blind something like this, though. It may require a study where we record subjects' sleep patters, make them use a screen at night, but don't tell them that it's the screen colors that are under experiment.

Empirically, I didn't notice and that almost screwed up the experiment; see the part where a driver change broke Redshift and I didn't notice for a month. (As well, I would note that you may be overestimating placebo or expectancy effects here. In the meta-analyses I've seen, randomization is much more important than placebo controls.)

Interesting - if I understand correctly, you're saying that you didn't notice for a month that no color balance was happening. Then perhaps an even simpler experiment preliminary experiment could be done to just see how well subjects are able to guess if a screen has been color balanced at night. If most people can't tell most of the time, then that simplifies doing an efficacy experiment.
Post reply on HN