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

Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

neuroai.science

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 257 posts

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#221

Post by bawolff »

accidentallfact wrote: post #196
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #141

I found the basic premise of this blog post to be incredibly flawed. The author seems very sure of himself that blue light filters don't work, but making arguments related to cell types and emissions spectra and circadian rhythms is not the way to make a conclusive argument in a topic like this. Science is littered with recommendations about things that "plausibly" made sense, but that turned out to be flawed or just…

Even the premise of the idea is wrong, as evenings are either blue from the blue sky, or white from the clouds. It takes exceptional circumstances to have a reddish evening, and even then it's just around the sunset. I guess that it may help people with undercorrected myopia due to the chromatic aberration, but, I don't know.

When the sun goes down the amount of blue light goes down. Are you disputing that? Respectfully this feels like a crazy claim.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#222

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

stuckonempty wrote: post #162
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #141

I found the basic premise of this blog post to be incredibly flawed. The author seems very sure of himself that blue light filters don't work, but making arguments related to cell types and emissions spectra and circadian rhythms is not the way to make a conclusive argument in a topic like this. Science is littered with recommendations about things that "plausibly" made sense, but that turned out to be flawed or just…

Did you read the article? He points out “It’s possible that Night Shift does something, but the biggest study I could find of Night Shift mode (still a pretty small study) found little effect on sleep, so if there’s an effect, it must be tiny.” He links the exact type of observational study you asked for Regardless the maximum possible effect will be constrained by the biology of the cells responsible for responding…

If the author goes "I couldn't find enough high quality studies on the topic I'm discussing", then the conclusion should be that we need more studies, not to come to unwarranted conclusions in the absence of actual data.

> Well some people are spending money and time investing in blue light filtering glasses and other solutions.

Ironically, we actually do have a number of good studies on the effects of blue light filtering glasses (easily findable with a Google search) and they do demonstrably reduce onset of sleep time. Where more research is needed is on software-only filters for screens.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#223

Post by InMice »

nandomrumber wrote: post #177
InMice wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of despise that part about nightshift, since i almost always like to keep it at medium anytime indoors and during winter. But in the later evening I want it max, and when i got to bed i want it even more. And ive always despised flux for that too. It's even worse since a lot of times i sleep in two phases each night and it doesnt allow to change the length of night time. So dumb. In a way it's mildly frustrati…

Can’t f.lux be controlled from the command line? I seem to recall it can. If so, you should be able to cron it to do whatever you want. I was using redshift on Linux for a while and had some aliases set to trigger various settings.

Ive never been aware of that and when I look it's just forum posts of people asking more than once with no reply.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#224

Post by samtheDamned »

7bit wrote: post #197
disillusioned wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that there's some sort of clinical statistically significant lift over, say, however you might control for a placebo here, who knows? To the extent that it's working for you in a meaningful way, placebo or not... does it even matter? If they're working for you, they're tautologically not a scam, except insofar as you find yourself missing out on benefits promised that aren't being realized, or you feel…

The same could be said about homeopathy, but homeopathy is a scam. The problem is, how do you define "if there's an effect"? A placebo can not have an effect, yet, it has.

The whole point of placebo is that it has an effect though, just not one based on a real change.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#225

Post by Perizors »

tartoran wrote: post #44
pclowes wrote: post #32

You can just do things. Not everything needs a study, you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone! Try things, if you like them, do them! Try not living a neurotic “study” based life, I am trying it and its pretty great!

Absolutely and this is something that can be tested rather easily. If blue filters aren't immediately helpful to eye strain then they probably don't work for you but if they are they probably do work for you.

Every dismissive reply talks about eye strain nada that is by far not what the author is taking about.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#226

Post by Perizors »

nandomrumber wrote: post #140
lisper wrote: post #35

Night shift seems to have a very strong causal effect on my sleep cycles. Up until about ten years ago I was a night owl, rarely falling asleep before midnight and rarely waking up before 8. Then I started getting serious about light hygiene and using night shift and now I'm a serious day person, rarely staying awake after 11 and rarely waking up after 7. But the real clincher is that when I travel I don't change the…

> light hygiene Awesome, hadn’t come across this term before. You might appreciate the concept of chronotypes . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronotype The DOAC podcast recently hosted Dr. Michael Breus on same. Apple Podcast link, or conjure your own: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-diary-of-a-ceo-wit...

Bear in mind that chronotypes, as stated in the wiki, only varies about 2-3 hours from each other. This is just to say that there is no nocturnal person in terms of biology, we are all diurnal mammals after all.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#228

Post by ak217 »

tartoran wrote: post #127
nsxwolf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t true? Myopia develops rapidly in youth then stabilizes in adulthood. It gets a worse with age, not corrective lenses. Then sometime after 40 you flip to presbyopia when your lenses lose flexibility.

I don't have severe myopia and I'm fine with no glasses for now. The optometrist detected .5 correction needed but advised me to not go for it for the reason I mentioned. I think they are more qualified to give this advice than some rando on the internet. If they were a mercenary they'd tell me to go for it, that optometry practice was part of an eye glasses store and I'm sure they'd gain from my business there. And…

There is plenty of information about this in trusted sources, the way you're describing this is incorrect. Overcorrection and badly designed simplistic optics can make myopia worse in childhood when the eye is growing. Your eye is no longer growing.

Don't trust everything your doctor says verbatim, they often oversimplify and their information can be out of date. Give your doctor the benefit of the doubt but check it against other sources and use it to build a mental model.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#229

Post by DANmode »

taeric wrote: post #105
aethrum wrote: post #9

They absolutely help my eyes not be so strained. If its placebo, its a working placebo. >Are people actually using Night Shift? >Aggravatingly, yes. What is the authors problem lol? It feels a lot better on eyeballs to use warm light things. Why does he care?

I find it somewhat pleasant, but by far the best thing I did to help my eye strain was greatly lower the brightness. Basically, I was told to make it so that my phone's camera could see something on the screen and my desk at the same time without washing out. After doing that, I have found that the "temperature" of the screen doesn't really matter to me that heavily.

Concur that most displays are set 25-50% too bright by default.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#230

Post by storus »

samtheDamned wrote: post #224
7bit wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same could be said about homeopathy, but homeopathy is a scam. The problem is, how do you define "if there's an effect"? A placebo can not have an effect, yet, it has.

The whole point of placebo is that it has an effect though, just not one based on a real change.

That won't work for immediate relief; placebo is studied statistically as a cumulative change over a period of time. Not when I put Gunnars over my sore eyes from computing too much and get immediate relief. Frankly, I find this discussion a bit insane, a bunch of people trying to persuade me "it's all in my head" because they align with the opposite opinion, not with reality.
Post reply on HN