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

Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

lincolnquirk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 294 posts

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#171

Post by relaxing »

schiho wrote: post #69

Simulating Daylight isn't very easy, especially not with LED diods. https://vgl.ict.usc.edu/Research/OptimalLED/ There was a lot of research in covering the daylight spectra by adding additional LED diods to get close to daylight. Coming from a filmset background, usually strong metal Halide lights are used only to simulate a daylight scene, for example the arri daylight 18, which is using a Metal Halide 18000 Watt b…

Wow, I’ve never wanted a bill of materials for a conference paper before.

Have you seen anyone successfully build a RGBW+Amber array that matches their results?

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#172

Post by CryptoPunk »

traverseda wrote: post #145
Udo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of self-importance on display is what makes it sound like gibberish. A: "I have the most ground-breaking idea ever!" B: "Okay, let's hear it?" A: "No, it's too dangerous, it may well destroy the world, but trust me it's brilliant and completely novel." It's a religion at that point.

How about bitcoin? It's not so much an idea as a piece of software, but being predicted on wasting energy it's going to do a lot of harm. That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. I believe that there are other ideas like that, things that set up spirals that are a lot worse than just "destroy energy to make money". Obviously they're not going to be universally compelling, an idea that's dangerous l…

>>It's not so much an idea as a piece of software, but being predicted on wasting energy it's going to do a lot of harm. That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas.

It's not a waste if the product the PoW generates is valued as equal to or greater than the cost of generating the PoW, and the market ensures that is the case, as miners cannot operating at a loss.

Where it can be socially harmful is when energy consumers don't pay for the cost of the negative externalities that the energy they purchase created in its generation, but that applies to all energy usage, not just that used in generating PoW.

You should know that costly signalling strategies are widely employed in nature because costly signals are reliable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#174

Post by traverseda »

mhb wrote: post #168
traverseda wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Yudkowsky is making that claim anywhere? >At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. >What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person who is making claims It's honestly really not that clear what you're trying to discuss, certainly you haven't been making a clear statement like that. I don't think anyone is making claims of be…

He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. Well, he isn't willing to reveal how he convinced his opponents to let the AI out of the box.

Yeah, but his win rate is probably not that much above control.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#175

Post by uxp100 »

kragen wrote: post #170
jerf wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1984, to get the amount of light put out by ~250-300 watts of LEDs in 2022 would have required the incandescent light array to come perilously close to the limit of what it is safe to pull from a single outlet continuously in the US, which is 1500 watts. (You can transiently pull 1800 from a standard wall outlet, which is used by hair dryers, but you're not supposed to pull it continuously for hours at a time.) It…

By the 01980s you could have easily been using fluorescents, which went mainstream a quarter century earlier, so I think your stickiness hypothesis is the more likely problem. This had been puzzling me! Thank you for providing the likely solution!

Maybe fluorescents with the idea that the narrow spectrum of light produced was less likely to be effective?

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#176

Post by necovek »

jl6 wrote: post #161
sokoloff wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.

Some people read websites the way they would read a math proof. One tiny error and the whole thing comes down. A more charitable reading is often perfectly appropriate.

If you are reading it as a math proof, I am only disputing the claim when the idea was invented.

As I don't bring up the rest of the article's points, I am neither supporting nor refuting them with that particular comment.

Math (or actually, logic) is a bit more resilient than you make it out to be.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#177

Post by necovek »

sokoloff wrote: post #131
drcongo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who any of these people are, but that is exactly what the article says, so why should we not believe that that's what the author believes?

Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.

Use of the word "invention" is usually a red flag. I've certainly done a number of things I never had knowledge of any prior art on, but I never said I "invented" those things.

If I wanted to, I'd probably go and research prior art first before making use of the word.

Also, I'd say that the article author is not referring just to brighter light as the invention, but rather as the use of extremely bright light indoors for different psychological effects.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#178

Post by kragen »

uxp100 wrote: post #175
kragen wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the 01980s you could have easily been using fluorescents, which went mainstream a quarter century earlier, so I think your stickiness hypothesis is the more likely problem. This had been puzzling me! Thank you for providing the likely solution!

Maybe fluorescents with the idea that the narrow spectrum of light produced was less likely to be effective?

Well, I mean, SAD lightboxes do use fluorescents.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#179

Post by Retric »

kragen wrote: post #178
uxp100 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe fluorescents with the idea that the narrow spectrum of light produced was less likely to be effective?

Well, I mean, SAD lightboxes do use fluorescents.

I spoke to a physiatrist who considered full spectrum light to be essential in the light boxes. Don’t know about the actual research on the topic.

Re: Someone should probably start a bright home lighting company (2019)

#180

Post by blagie »

callesgg wrote: post #65

I tried doing something like this last year, I purchased lots of 1000 lumen LED bulbs. The light was blindingly bright to look at and it looks very strange in a room. My takeaway was: * that you need some type of diffuser. * The light leak out of the apartment was crazy. My apartment looked completely insane from the street. * The light warmth is very important. And proper sun coloured lamps don't exist or are crazy…

I found that:

1) Most modern LEDs are surprisingly good for being sun-colored. It's luck-of-the-draw, though. I once bought some very expensive CFL bulbs from B&H, rated as 90+CRI, and they were literally tritone. I bought some bottom-of-the-barrel LED bulbs at Walmart, and they were great (until they started failing a few months later).

2) You can test this yourself with a $1 pair of diffraction glasses. They're sold as "3d" or "rainbow" or similar kids toys at dollar stores, or with a shipping markup Fleabay.

3) Diffuser is important, but it's also possible to just install many bulbs all around.

4) Consistency is important. If your hallway feels dimmer or brighter than your room, it's not great.

5) Changing color temperature is nice.

I don't think there's a business model here, though. This stuff isn't expensive, but most of the cost is educating the customer. Once a customer is educated, they can do the same thing themselves without your help (even with cheap Walmart lights).

Post reply on HN