Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GoodBytes

Blue light filter is actually bad for you, new study shows

Recommended Posts

Remember they made people take salt tablets and denied them water when working out as it was shown to be good for them? Or what about the food pyramid? Oh yeah and fat is terrible dump sugar in it instead. Lol life gives you cancer, just enjoy it


ƆԀ S₱▓Ɇ▓cs: i7 6ʇɥפᴉƎ00K (4.4ghz), Asus DeLuxe X99A II, GT҉X҉1҉0҉8҉0 Zotac Amp ExTrꍟꎭe),Si6F4Gb D???????r PlatinUm, EVGA G2 Sǝʌǝᘉ5ᙣᙍᖇᓎᙎᗅᖶt, Phanteks Enthoo Primo, 3TB WD Black, 500gb 850 Evo, H100iGeeTeeX, Windows 10, K70 R̸̢̡̭͍͕̱̭̟̩̀̀̃́̃͒̈́̈́͑̑́̆͘͜ͅG̶̦̬͊́B̸͈̝̖͗̈́, G502, HyperX Cloud 2s, Asus MX34. פN∩SW∀S 960 EVO

Just keeping this here as a backup 9̵̨̢̨̧̧̡̧̡̧̡̧̡̡̢̢̡̢̧̡̢̡̡̢̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̱̖͈̠̝̯̹͉̝̞̩̠̹̺̰̺̲̳͈̞̻̜̫̹̱̗̣͙̻̘͎̲̝͙͍͔̯̲̟̞͚̖̘͉̭̰̣͎͕̼̼̜̼͕͎̣͇͓͓͎̼̺̯͈̤̝͖̩̭͍̣̱̞̬̺̯̼̤̲͎̖̠̟͍̘̭͔̟̗̙̗̗̤̦͍̫̬͔̦̳̗̳͔̞̼̝͍̝͈̻͇̭̠͈̳͍̫̮̥̭͍͔͈̠̹̼̬̰͈̤͚̖̯͍͉͖̥̹̺͕̲̥̤̺̹̹̪̺̺̭͕͓̟̳̹͍̖͎̣̫͓͍͈͕̳̹̙̰͉͙̝̜̠̥̝̲̮̬͕̰̹̳͕̰̲̣̯̫̮͙̹̮͙̮̝̣͇̺̺͇̺̺͈̳̜̣̙̻̣̜̻̦͚̹̩͓͚̖͍̥̟͍͎̦͙̫̜͔̭̥͈̬̝̺̩͙͙͉̻̰̬̗̣͖̦͎̥̜̬̹͓͈͙̤̜̗͔̩̖̳̫̑̀̂̽̈́̈́̿͒̿̋̊͌̾̄̄̒̌͐̽̿̊͑̑̆͗̈̎̄͒̑̋͛̑͑̂͑̀͐̀͑̓͊̇͆̿͑͛͛͆́͆̓̿̇̀̓͑͆͂̓̾̏͊̀̇̍̃́̒̎̀̒̄̓̒̐̑̊̏̌̽̓͂͋̓̐̓͊̌͋̀̐̇̌̓̔͊̈̇́̏͒̋͊̓̆̋̈̀̌̔͆͑̈̐̈̍̀̉̋̈́͊̽͂̿͌͊̆̾̉͐̿̓̄̾͑̈́͗͗̂̂́̇͂̀̈́́̽̈́̓̓͂̽̓̀̄͌̐̔̄̄͒͌̈́̅̉͊̂͒̀̈́̌͂̽̀̑̏̽̀͑̐̐͋̀̀͋̓̅͋͗̍́͗̈́̆̏̇͊̌̏̔̑̐̈́͑̎͑͆̏̎́̑̍̏̒̌̊͘͘̚̕̚̕̕̚̕̚̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅ8̵̨̛̛̛̛̮͍͕̥͉̦̥̱̞̜̫̘̤̖̬͍͇͓̜̻̪̤̣̣̹̑͑̏̈́̐̐́̎͒̔͒̌̑̓̆̓͑̉̈́́͋̌͋͐͛͋̃̍̽̊͗͋͊̂̅͊͑́͋͛̉̏̓͌̾̈́̀͛͊̾͑̌̀̀̌̓̏̑́̄̉̌͂́͛̋͊̄͐͊̈́̀̌̆̎̿̓̔̍̎̀̍̚̕̕͘͘͘̕̚͝͝͠͠͠0̶̡̡̡̢̨̨͕̠̠͉̺̻̯̱̘͇̥͎͖̯͕̖̬̭͔̪̪͎̺̠̤̬̬̤̣̭̣͍̥̱̘̳̣̤͚̭̥͚̦͙̱̦͕̼͖͙͕͇̭͓͉͎̹̣̣͕̜͍͖̳̭͕̼̳̖̩͍͔̱̙̠̝̺̰̦̱̿̄̀͐͜͜ͅͅt̶̡̨̡̨̧̢̧̢̨̧̧̧̧̢̡̨̨̢̨̢̧̢̛̛̛̛̛̠͍̞̮͇̪͉̩̗̗͖̫͉͎͓̮̣̘̫͔̘̬̮̙̯̣͕͓̲̣͓͓̣̹̟͈̱͚̘̼̙̖̖̼̙̜̝͙̣̠̪̲̞̖̠̯̖̠̜̱͉̲̺͙̤̻̦̜͎̙̳̺̭̪̱͓̦̹̺͙̫̖̖̰̣͈͍̜̺̘͕̬̥͇̗̖̺̣̲̫̟̣̜̭̟̱̳̳̖͖͇̹̯̜̹͙̻̥̙͉͕̜͎͕̦͕̱͖͉̜̹̱̦͔͎̲̦͔̖̘̫̻̹̮̗̮̜̰͇̰͔̱͙̞̠͍͉͕̳͍̰̠̗̠̯̜̩͓̭̺̦̲̲͖̯̩̲̣̠͉̦̬͓̠̜̲͍̘͇̳̳͔̼̣͚̙͙͚͕̙̘̣̠͍̟̪̝̲͇͚̦̖͕̰̟̪͖̳̲͉͙̰̭̼̩̟̝̣̝̬̳͎̙̱͒̃̈͊̔͒͗̐̄̌͐͆̍͂̃̈́̾͗̅̐͒̓̆͛̂̾͋̍͂̂̄̇̿̈͌̅̈́̃̾̔̇̇̾̀͊͋̋̌̄͌͆͆̎̓̈́̾̊͊̇̌̔̈́̈́̀̐͊̊̍͑̊̈̓͑̀́̅̀̑̈́̽̃̽͛̇́̐̓̀͆̔̈̀̍̏̆̓̆͒̋́̋̍́̂̉͛̓̓̂̋̎́̒̏̈͋̃̽͆̓̀̔͑̈́̓͌͑̅̽́̐̍̉̑̓̈́͌̋̈́͂̊́͆͂̇̈́̔̃͌̅̈́͌͛̑̐̓̔̈́̀͊͛̐̾͐̔̾̈̃̈̄͑̓̋̇̉̉̚̕̚͘̕̚̚̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅͅi̵̢̧̢̧̡̧̢̢̧̢̢̢̡̡̡̧̧̡̡̧̛̛͈̺̲̫͕̞͓̥̖̭̜̫͉̻̗̭̖͔̮̠͇̩̹̱͈̗̭͈̤̠̮͙͇̲͙̰̳̹̲͙̜̟͚͎͓̦̫͚̻̟̰̣̲̺̦̫͓̖̯̝̬͉̯͓͈̫̭̜̱̞̹̪͔̤̜͙͓̗̗̻̟͎͇̺̘̯̲̝̫͚̰̹̫̗̳̣͙̮̱̲͕̺̠͉̫̖̟͖̦͉̟͈̭̣̹̱̖̗̺̘̦̠̯̲͔̘̱̣͙̩̻̰̠͓͙̰̺̠̖̟̗̖͉̞̣̥̝̤̫̫̜͕̻͉̺͚̣̝̥͇̭͎̖̦̙̲͈̲̠̹̼͎͕̩͓̖̥̘̱̜͙̹̝͔̭̣̮̗̞̩̣̬̯̜̻̯̩̮̩̹̻̯̬̖͂̈͂̒̇͗͑̐̌̎̑̽̑̈̈́͑̽́̊͋̿͊͋̅̐̈́͑̇̿̈́̌͌̊̅͂̎͆̏̓͂̈̿̏̃͑̏̓͆̔̋̎̕͘͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅZ̴̧̢̨̢̧̢̢̡̧̢̢̢̨̨̨̡̨̧̢̧̛̛̬̖͈̮̝̭̖͖̗̹̣̼̼̘̘̫̠̭̞͙͔͙̜̠̗̪̠̼̫̻͓̳̟̲̳̻̙̼͇̺͎̘̹̼͔̺̹̬̯̤̮̟͈̭̻͚̣̲͔͙̥͕̣̻̰͈̼̱̺̤̤͉̙̦̩̗͎̞͓̭̞̗͉̳̭̭̺̹̹̮͕̘̪̞̱̥͈̹̳͇̟̹̱̙͚̯̮̳̤͍̪̞̦̳̦͍̲̥̳͇̪̬̰̠͙͕̖̝̫̩̯̱̘͓͎̪͈̤̜͎̱̹̹̱̲̻͎̖̳͚̭̪̦̗̬͍̯̘̣̩̬͖̝̹̣̗̭͖̜͕̼̼̲̭͕͔̩͓̞̝͓͍̗̙̯͔̯̞̝̳̜̜͉̖̩͇̩̘̪̥̱͓̭͎͖̱̙̩̜͎̙͉̟͎͔̝̥͕͍͓̹̮̦̫͚̠̯͓̱͖͔͓̤͉̠͙̋͐̀͌̈́͆̾͆̑̔͂͒̀̊̀͋͑̂͊̅͐̿́̈́̐̀̏̋̃̄͆͒̈́̿̎́́̈̀̀͌̔͋͊̊̉̿͗͊͑̔͐̇͆͛̂̐͊̉̄̈́̄̐͂͂͒͑͗̓͑̓̾̑͋̒͐͑̾͂̎̋̃̽̂̅̇̿̍̈́́̄̍͂͑̏̐̾̎̆̉̾͂̽̈̆̔́͋͗̓̑̕͘̕͘͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͠͠͝ͅo̶̪͆́̀͂̂́̄̅͂̿͛̈́̿͊͗́͘͝t̴̡̨̧̨̧̡̧̨̡̢̧̢̡̨̛̪͈̣̭̺̱̪̹̺̣̬̖̣̻͈̞̙͇̩̻̫͈̝̭̟͎̻̟̻̝̱͔̝̼͍̞̼̣̘̤̯͓͉̖̠̤͔̜̙͚͓̻͓̬͓̻̜̯̱̖̳̱̗̠̝̥̩͓̗̪̙͓̖̠͎̗͎̱̮̯̮͙̩̫̹̹̖͙̙͖̻͈̙̻͇͔̙̣̱͔̜̣̭̱͈͕̠̹͙̹͇̻̼͎͍̥̘͙̘̤̜͎̟͖̹̦̺̤͍̣̼̻̱̲͎̗̹͉͙̪̞̻̹͚̰̻͈͈͊̈́̽̀̎̃̊́̈́̏̃̍̉̇̑̂̇̏̀͊̑̓͛̽͋̈́͆́̊͊̍͌̈́̓͊̌̿̂̾̐͑̓̀́͒̃̋̓͆̇̀͊̆͗̂͑͐̀͗̅̆͘̕͘̕̕͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅḁ̶̢̡̨̧̡̡̨̨̧̨̡̡̢̧̨̡̡̛̛̛͍̱̳͚͕̩͍̺̪̻̫̙͈̬͙̖͙̬͍̬̟̣̝̲̼̜̼̺͎̥̮̝͙̪̘̙̻͖͇͚͙̣̬̖̲̲̥̯̦̗̰̙̗̪̞̗̩̻̪̤̣̜̳̩̦̻͓̞̙͍͙̫̩̹̥͚̻̦̗̰̲̙̫̬̱̺̞̟̻͓̞͚̦̘̝̤͎̤̜̜̥̗̱͈̣̻̰̮̼̙͚͚̠͚̲̤͔̰̭̙̳͍̭͎̙͚͍̟̺͎̝͓̹̰̟͈͈̖̺͙̩̯͔̙̭̟̞̟̼̮̦̜̳͕̞̼͈̜͍̮͕̜͚̝̦̞̥̜̥̗̠̦͇͖̳͈̜̮̣͚̲̟͙̎̈́́͊̔̑̽̅͐͐͆̀͐́̓̅̈͑͑̍̿̏́͆͌̋̌̃̒̽̀̋̀̃̏̌́͂̿̃̎̐͊̒̀̊̅͒̎͆̿̈́̑̐̒̀̈́̓̾͋͆̇̋͒̎̈̄̓̂͊̆͂̈́̒̎͐̇̍̆̋̅̿̔͒̄̇̂̋̈́͆̎̔̇͊̊̈́̔̏͋́̀͂̈́̊͋͂̍̾̓͛̇̔̚͘̚̕̚͘͘̕̕̕̚͘͘̚̕̚̕͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅç̵̧̢̨̢̢̢̧̧̡̨̡̢̧̧̧̨̡̡̨̨̢̢̢̧̨̢̨̢̛̛͉̗̠͇̹̖̝͕͚͎̟̻͓̳̰̻̺̞̣͚̤͙͍͇̗̼͖͔͕͙͖̺͙̖̹̘̘̺͓̜͍̣̰̗̖̺̗̪̘̯̘͚̲͚̲̬̞̹̹͕̭͔̳̘̝̬͉̗̪͉͕̞̫͔̭̭̜͉͔̬̫͙̖̙͚͔͙͚͍̲̘͚̪̗̞̣̞̲͎͔͖̺͍͎̝͎͍̣͍̩̟͈͕̗͉̪̯͉͎͖͍̖͎̖̯̲̘̦̟̭͍͚͓͈͙̬͖̘̱̝̜̘̹̩̝̥̜͎̬͓̬͙͍͇͚̟̫͇̬̲̥̘̞̘̟̘̝̫͈̙̻͇͎̣̪̪̠̲͓͉͙͚̭̪͇̯̠̯̠͖̞̜͓̲͎͇̼̱̦͍͉͈͕͉̗̟̖̗̱̭͚͎̘͓̬͍̱͍̖̯̜̗̹̰̲̩̪͍̞̜̫̩̠͔̻̫͍͇͕̰̰̘͚͈̠̻̮͊̐̿̏̐̀̇̑̐̈͛͑͑̍̑̔̃̈́̓̈́̇̐͑̐̊̆͂̀̏͛̊̔̍̽͗͋̊̍̓̈́̏̅͌̀̽́̑͒͒̓͗̈́̎͌͂̕̚͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅS̵̡̡̧̧̨̨̡̢̡̡̡̡̧̧̡̧̢̫̯͔̼̲͉͙̱̮̭̗͖̯̤͙̜͚̰̮̝͚̥̜̞̠̤̺̝͇̻̱͙̩̲̺͍̳̤̺̖̝̳̪̻̗̮̪̖̺̹̭͍͇̗̝̱̻̳̝̖̝͎̙͉̞̱̯̙̜͇̯̻̞̱̭̗͉̰̮̞͍̫̺͙͎̙̞̯̟͓͉̹̲͖͎̼̫̩̱͇̲͓̪͉̺̞̻͎̤̥̭̺̘̻̥͇̤̖̰̘̭̳̫̙̤̻͇̪̦̭̱͎̥̟͖͕̣̤̩̟̲̭̹̦̹̣͖̖͒̈́̈́̓͗̈̄͂̈́̅̐̐̿̎̂͗̎̿̕͘͜͜͜͜͝͝ͅͅt̸̡̡̧̧̨̡̢̛̥̥̭͍̗͈̩͕͔͔̞̟͍̭͇̙̺̤͚͎͈͎͕̱͈̦͍͔͓̬͚̗̰̦͓̭̰̭̎̀̂̈́̓̒̈́̈́̂̄̋́̇̂͐͒̋̋̉͐̉̏̇͋̓̈́͐̾͋̒͒͐̊̊̀̄͆̄͆̑͆̇̊̓̚̚̕̚̕͜͠͝͝ͅͅơ̵̡̨̡̡̡̨̛̺͕̼͔̼̪̳͖͓̠̘̘̳̼͚͙͙͚̰͚͚͖̥̦̥̘̖̜̰͔̠͕̦͎̞̮͚͕͍̤̠̦͍̥̝̰̖̳̫̮̪͇̤̱̜͙͔̯͙̙̼͇̹̥̜͈̲̺̝̻̮̬̼̫̞̗̣̪̱͓̺̜̠͇͚͓̳̹̥̳̠͍̫͈̟͈̘̯̬̞͔̝͍͍̥̒̐͗͒͂͆̑̀̿̏́̀͑͗̐́̀̾̓́̌̇̒̈́̌̓͐̃̈́̒̂̀̾͂̊̀̂͐̃̄̓̔̽̒̈́̇̓͌̇̂̆̒̏̊̋͊͛͌̊̇̒̅͌̄̎̔̈́͊́̽̋̈̇̈́́͊̅͂̎̃͌͊͛͂̄̽̈́̿͐̉̽̿́́̉͆̈́̒́̂̾̄̇̌̒̈̅̍̿̐͑̓͊̈́̈̋̈́̉̍̋̊̈̀̈́̾̿̌̀̈́͌̑̍́̋̒̀̂̈́́̾̏̐̅̈̑͗͐̈͂̄̾̄̈́̍̉͑͛͗͋̈́̃̄̊́́͐̀̀̽̇̓̄̓̃͋͋̂̽̔̀̎͌̈́̈́̑̓̔̀̓͐͛͆̿̋͑͛̈́͂̅̋̅͆͗̇́̀̒́̏͒̐̍͂̓͐͐̇̂̉̑̊͑̉̋̍͊̄̀͂̎͒̔͊̃̏̕̚̕̕͘͘͘̚͘̚͘̕͘̚͘̚̚̚̕͘͜͜͜͝͝͠͠͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅc̴̨̡̢̢̢̡̡̢̛̛̛̻͇̝̣͉͚͎͕̻̦͖̤̖͇̪̩̤̻̭̮̙̰̖̰̳̪̱̹̳̬͖̣͙̼̙̰̻̘͇͚̺̗̩̫̞̳̼̤͔͍͉̟͕̯̺͈̤̰̹̍̋́͆̾̆̊͆͋̀͑͒̄̿̄̀̂͋̊͆́͑̑̽͊̓́̔̽̌͊̄͑͒͐̑͗̿̃̀̓̅́̿͗̈́͌̋̀̏̂͌̓́̇̀͒͋̌̌̅͋͌̆͐̀̔̒͐̊̇̿̽̀̈́̃̒̋̀̈́̃̏̂̊͗̑̊̈̇̀̌͐̈́̉̂̏͊̄͐̈̽͒̏̒̓́̌̓̅́̓̃͐͊͒̄͑̒͌̍̈́̕͘̚͘̕͘̚̕͜͝͠͝͝͝ͅǩ̴̢̢̢̧̨̢̢̢̨̨̨̢̢̢̨̧̨̡̡̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̜̥̩̙͕̮̪̻͈̘̯̼̰̜͚̰͖̬̳͖̣̭̼͔̲͉̭̺͚̺̟͉̝̱̲͎͉̙̥̤͚͙̬̪̜̺͙͍̱̞̭̬̩̖̤̹̤̺̦͈̰̗̰͍͇̱̤̬̬͙̙̲̙̜͖͓̙̟̙̯̪͍̺̥͔͕̝̳̹̻͇̠̣͈̰̦͓͕̩͇͈͇̖͙͍̰̲̤̞͎̟̝̝͈͖͔͖̦̮̗̬̞̞̜̬̠̹̣̣̲̮̞̤̜̤̲̙͔͕̯͔͍̤͕̣͔͙̪̫̝̣̰̬̬̭̞͔̦̟̥̣̻͉͈̮̥̦̮̦͕̤͇̺͆͆̈͗̄̀̌̔̈́̈̉̾̊̐̆̂͛̀̋́̏̀̿͒̓̈́̈́͂̽̾͗͊̋̐̓̓̀̃̊̊͑̓̈̎̇͑̆̂̉̾̾̑͊̉̃́̑͌̀̌̐̅̃̿̆̎̈́̀̒́͛̓̀̊́̋͛͒͊̆̀̃̊͋̋̾̇̒̋͂̏͗͆̂̔́̐̀́͗̅̈̋̂̎̒͊̌̉̈̈́͌̈́̔̾̊̎́͐͒̋̽̽́̾̿̚̕͘͘̚̕̕̕̚̚̕̚̕͘͜͜͜͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅB̸̢̧̨̡̢̧̨̡̡̨̡̨̡̡̡̢̨̢̨̛̛̛̛̛̛͉̞͚̰̭̲͈͎͕͈̦͍͈̮̪̤̻̻͉̫̱͔̞̫̦̰͈̗̯̜̩̪̲̻̖̳͖̦͎͔̮̺̬̬̼̦̠̪̤͙͍͓̜̥̙̖̫̻̜͍̻̙̖̜̹͔̗̪̜̖̼̞̣̠̫͉̯̮̤͈͎̝̪͎͇͙̦̥͙̳̫̰̪̣̱̘̤̭̱͍̦͔̖͎̺̝̰̦̱̣͙̙̤͚̲͔̘̱̜̻͔̥̻͖̭͔̜͉̺͕͙͖̜͉͕̤͚̠̩̮̟͚̗͈͙̟̞̮̬̺̻̞͔̥͉͍̦̤͓̦̻̦̯̟̰̭̝̘̩̖̝͔̳͉̗̖̱̩̩̟͙͙͛̀͐̈́̂̇͛̅̒̉̏̈́̿͐́̏̃̏̓̌̽͐̈́͛̍͗͆͛̋̔̉͂̔̂̓̌͌͋̂͆̉͑̊̎́̈́̈̂͆͑́̃̍̇̿̅̾́́̿̅̾̆̅̈́̈̓͒͌͛̃͆̋͂̏̓̅̀͂̽̂̈̈́̎̾̐͋͑̅̍̈́̑̅̄͆̓̾̈́͐̎̊͐̌̌̓͊̊̔̈́̃͗̓͊͐̌͆̓͗̓̓̾̂̽͊͗́́́̽͊͆͋͊̀̑̿̔͒̏̈́́̏͆̈́͋̒͗͂̄̇̒͐̃͑̅̍͒̎̈́̌̋́̓͂̀̇͛̋͊͆̈́̋́̍̃͒̆̕̚̚̕̕̕͘̕̚̚͘̕͜͜͜͜͝͠͠͝͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅI̵̡̢̧̨̡̢̨̡̡̢̡̧̡̢̢̢̡̢̛̛͕͎͕̩̠̹̩̺̣̳̱͈̻̮̺̟̘̩̻̫͖̟͓̩̜̙͓͇̙̱̭̰̻̫̥̗̠͍͍͚̞̘̫͉̬̫̖̖̦͖͉̖̩̩̖̤̺̥̻̝͈͎̻͓̟̹͍̲͚͙̹̟̟̯͚̳̟͕̮̻̟͈͇̩̝̼̭̯͚͕̬͇̲̲̯̰̖̙̣̝͇̠̞̙͖͎̮̬̳̥̣̺̰͔̳̳̝̩̤̦̳̞̰̩̫̟͚̱̪̘͕̫̼͉̹̹̟̮̱̤̜͚̝̠̤̖̮̯̳͖̗̹̞̜̹̭̿̏͋̒͆̔̄̃̾̓͛̾̌́̅̂͆̔͌͆͋̔̾́̈̇̐̄̑̓̂̾́̄̿̓̅̆͌̉̎̏̄͛̉͆̓̎͒͘̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͠ͅͅƠ̷̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̟̰͔͔͇̲̰̮̘̭̭̖̥̟̘̠̬̺̪͇̲͋͂̅̈́̍͂̽͗̾͒̇̇̒͐̍̽͊́̑̇̑̾̉̓̈̾͒̍̌̅̒̾̈́̆͌̌̾̎̽̐̅̏́̈̔͛̀̋̃͊̒̓͗͒̑͒̃͂̌̄̇̑̇͛̆̾͛̒̇̍̒̓̀̈́̄̐͂̍͊͗̎̔͌͛̂̏̉̊̎͗͊͒̂̈̽̊́̔̊̃͑̈́̑̌̋̓̅̔́́͒̄̈́̈̂͐̈̅̈̓͌̓͊́̆͌̉͐̊̉͛̓̏̓̅̈́͂̉̒̇̉̆̀̍̄̇͆͛̏̉̑̃̓͂́͋̃̆̒͋̓͊̄́̓̕̕̕̚͘͘͘̚̕̚͘̕̕͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͠ͅS̷̢̨̧̢̡̨̢̨̢̨̧̧̨̧͚̱̪͇̱̮̪̮̦̝͖̜͙̘̪̘̟̱͇͎̻̪͚̩͍̠̹̮͚̦̝̤͖̙͔͚̙̺̩̥̻͈̺̦͕͈̹̳̖͓̜͚̜̭͉͇͖̟͔͕̹̯̬͍̱̫̮͓̙͇̗̙̼͚̪͇̦̗̜̼̠͈̩̠͉͉̘̱̯̪̟͕̘͖̝͇̼͕̳̻̜͖̜͇̣̠̹̬̗̝͓̖͚̺̫͛̉̅̐̕͘͜͜͜͜ͅͅͅ.̶̨̢̢̨̢̨̢̛̻͙̜̼̮̝̙̣̘̗̪̜̬̳̫̙̮̣̹̥̲̥͇͈̮̟͉̰̮̪̲̗̳̰̫̙͍̦̘̠̗̥̮̹̤̼̼̩͕͉͕͇͙̯̫̩̦̟̦̹͈͔̱̝͈̤͓̻̟̮̱͖̟̹̝͉̰͊̓̏̇͂̅̀̌͑̿͆̿̿͗̽̌̈́̉̂̀̒̊̿͆̃̄͑͆̃̇͒̀͐̍̅̃̍̈́̃̕͘͜͜͝͠͠z̴̢̢̡̧̢̢̧̢̨̡̨̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̲͚̠̜̮̠̜̞̤̺͈̘͍̻̫͖̣̥̗̙̳͓͙̫̫͖͍͇̬̲̳̭̘̮̤̬̖̼͎̬̯̼̮͔̭̠͎͓̼̖̟͈͓̦̩̦̳̙̮̗̮̩͙͓̮̰̜͎̺̞̝̪͎̯̜͈͇̪̙͎̩͖̭̟͎̲̩͔͓͈͌́̿͐̍̓͗͑̒̈́̎͂̋͂̀͂̑͂͊͆̍͛̄̃͌͗̌́̈̊́́̅͗̉͛͌͋̂̋̇̅̔̇͊͑͆̐̇͊͋̄̈́͆̍̋̏͑̓̈́̏̀͒̂̔̄̅̇̌̀̈́̿̽̋͐̾̆͆͆̈̌̿̈́̎͌̊̓̒͐̾̇̈́̍͛̅͌̽́̏͆̉́̉̓̅́͂͛̄̆͌̈́̇͐̒̿̾͌͊͗̀͑̃̊̓̈̈́̊͒̒̏̿́͑̄̑͋̀̽̀̔̀̎̄͑̌̔́̉̐͛̓̐̅́̒̎̈͆̀̍̾̀͂̄̈́̈́̈́̑̏̈́̐̽̐́̏̂̐̔̓̉̈́͂̕̚̕͘͘̚͘̚̕̚̚̚͘̕̕̕͜͜͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅī̸̧̧̧̡̨̨̢̨̛̛̘͓̼̰̰̮̗̰͚̙̥̣͍̦̺͈̣̻͇̱͔̰͈͓͖͈̻̲̫̪̲͈̜̲̬̖̻̰̦̰͙̤̘̝̦̟͈̭̱̮̠͍̖̲͉̫͔͖͔͈̻̖̝͎̖͕͔̣͈̤̗̱̀̅̃̈́͌̿̏͋̊̇̂̀̀̒̉̄̈́͋͌̽́̈́̓̑̈̀̍͗͜͜͠͠ͅp̴̢̢̧̨̡̡̨̢̨̢̢̢̨̡̛̛͕̩͕̟̫̝͈̖̟̣̲̖̭̙͇̟̗͖͎̹͇̘̰̗̝̹̤̺͉͎̙̝̟͙͚̦͚͖̜̫̰͖̼̤̥̤̹̖͉͚̺̥̮̮̫͖͍̼̰̭̤̲͔̩̯̣͖̻͇̞̳̬͉̣̖̥̣͓̤͔̪̙͎̰̬͚̣̭̞̬͎̼͉͓̮͙͕̗̦̞̥̮̘̻͎̭̼͚͎͈͇̥̗͖̫̮̤̦͙̭͎̝͖̣̰̱̩͎̩͎̘͇̟̠̱̬͈̗͍̦̘̱̰̤̱̘̫̫̮̥͕͉̥̜̯͖̖͍̮̼̲͓̤̮͈̤͓̭̝̟̲̲̳̟̠͉̙̻͕͙̞͔̖͈̱̞͓͔̬̮͎̙̭͎̩̟̖͚̆͐̅͆̿͐̄̓̀̇̂̊̃̂̄̊̀͐̍̌̅͌̆͊̆̓́̄́̃̆͗͊́̓̀͑͐̐̇͐̍́̓̈́̓̑̈̈́̽͂́̑͒͐͋̊͊̇̇̆̑̃̈́̎͛̎̓͊͛̐̾́̀͌̐̈́͛̃̂̈̿̽̇̋̍͒̍͗̈͘̚̚͘̚͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͜͠͠͝͝ͅͅͅ☻♥■∞{╚mYÄÜXτ╕○\╚Θº£¥ΘBM@Q05♠{{↨↨▬§¶‼↕◄►☼1♦  wumbo╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

Reminds me of eggs. Before I was even born there was a study done that showed eggs were really good for you, so eat the whole thing. Then a decade or two later, another study said only egg whites are healthy and to not eat the yolk. A few years ago came full 360. Now studies show the whole egg, once again, is healthy. I've been eating eggs my entire life. Hell, I ate 3 hard-boiled eggs per day, everyday, back when I lifted. If they were bad for us, I probably wouldn't be here right now.

With all studies, it always matters who's paying and what the agendas they aren't telling you about. (Most studies you see in headlines are designed for those headlines.)

 

As for eggs, the yolk is one of the best sources of choline available, which just happens to be centrally critical substrate for nerves. Oh, and cholesterol is neuro-protective, always has been. Too high of cholesterol is caused by arterial inflammation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

arent mice nocturnal??

xD Absolutely correct.  I feel like that maybe could be a wrench in the mice -> human relevance transfer I alluded to earlier.


Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

With all studies, it always matters who's paying and what the agendas they aren't telling you about. (Most studies you see in headlines are designed for those headlines.)

 

As for eggs, the yolk is one of the best sources of choline available, which just happens to be centrally critical substrate for nerves. Oh, and cholesterol is neuro-protective, always has been. Too high of cholesterol is caused by arterial inflammation.

This arterial inflammation thing is different information than I remember.  Doesn’t mean it’s wrong though.  Science is always proving itself wrong.  That’s it’s function, really.  It’s a collection of things we know to be untrue.  You show something is probably true by trying to prove it false from a bunch of different directions and failing.  At one time the best scientific model we had of the universe was astrology.  The germ theory of disease wasn’t the first theory of disease, it’s just just one that keeps on failing to be proved false.  It’s a generally accepted theory.  That’s a close to true as science can get.

Edited by Bombastinator
Added an explanatory bit

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean this was done in mice, they have different habits to humans in their natural life. I dont subscribe to the "I LOVE TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I PEED ON MY DISPLAY BECAUSE MUH EEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!" gang but i would be interested in seeing a study using similar methods in humans instead.


I spent $2500 on building my PC and all i do with it is play no games atm & watch anime at 1080p(finally)...

Builds:

The Toaster Project! Northern Bee!

 

The original LAN PC build log! (Old, dead and replaced by The Toaster Project & 5.0)

Spoiler

"Here is some advice that might have gotten lost somewhere along the way in your life. 

 

#1. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

#2. It's best to keep your mouth shut; and appear to be stupid, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

#3. There is nothing "wrong" with being wrong. Learning from a mistake can be more valuable than not making one in the first place.

 

Follow these simple rules in life, and I promise you, things magically get easier. " - MageTank 31-10-2016

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't change anything.

 

If you filter out blue light and don't turn up the brightness you'll end up with a lower brightness overall.

 

To not have an effect using a blue light filter you'd have to turn up brightness to compensate.

 

If his study is accurate and found the truth basically a blue light filter should stilll help, but not for the reason you thought. It's not blue light specifically but overall brightness level.


\\ QUIET AUDIO WORKSTATION //

5960X 3.7GHz @ 0.983V / ASUS X99-A USB3.1      

32 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 4 & 2667MHz @ 1.2V

AMD R9 Fury X

256GB SM961 + 1TB Samsung 850 Evo  

Cooler Master Silencio 652S (soon Calyos NSG S0 ^^)              

Noctua NH-D15 / 3x NF-S12A                 

Seasonic PRIME Titanium 750W        

Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum / Logitech G900

2x Samsung S24E650BW 16:10  / Adam A7X / Fractal Axe Fx 2 Mark I

Windows 7 Ultimate

 

4K GAMING/EMULATION RIG

Xeon X5670 4.2Ghz (200BCLK) @ ~1.38V / Asus P6X58D Premium

12GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz

Gainward GTX 1080 Golden Sample

Intel 535 Series 240 GB + San Disk SSD Plus 512GB

Corsair Crystal 570X

Noctua NH-S12 

Be Quiet Dark Rock 11 650W

Logitech K830

Xbox One Wireless Controller

Logitech Z623 Speakers/Subwoofer

Windows 10 Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget people, that somewhere in all the claims of "who paid for that study" and "remember when science said X was good for you",  as humans progress with research and scientific endeavor we learn more and understand more.  Sure the science has presented us we new evidence leading us to change our position, but that is how we know the scientific method is working and that the people who changed their minds are only interested in the best evidence.   We can only operate on the best evidence we have today, as dismissing washing your hands because 200 years ago they didn't understand germs is as stupid as excluding a research outcome based solely on it's funding and not it's own merits.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an IT professional I stare at screens all day. I am still reaching for my glasses that filter out blue light when my eyes get tired. It still helps me. However I never really noticed a big change in my night rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Who funded the study is a big one.

In this case it was the BBSRC, which is a public funded organization. It's part of the UK Research and Innovation organization.

There is no bribes or profit motivations involved here. The money comes from taxpayers, not companies.

But yeah, it's important to look at where the money comes from. In this case we probably don't need to worry about there being ulterior motifs.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Make no mistake, while there are many similarities between mice and people, they're used because they're cheap, have quick lifecycles, and for some reason are not subject to the same ethical rules covering many other animals, not because they're a perfect analog.  Plenty of things turn out to not make that leap.

There are at least three more reasons why they are used that I can think of.

1) The mice and rats used for research are heavily inbred so that they are almost identical to one another. That makes testing very predictable and uniform. If one lab rat reacts a certain way to a medicine, then it's a very high probability that all lab rats react the same way.

2) Mice and rats are actually very similar to humans. Not just genetically but also biologically and in terms of behaviour. Because of this they can get a lot of the same diseases humans can get, which is not true for a lot of other animals. 

3) At this point, mice are VERY well understood. We can be pretty confident that if a mice reacts one way, we can predict how a human reacts as well.

 

 

It kind of bothers me when people go "well they just tested it on mice so it doesn't mean it's true for humans". Scientists didn't decide to use mice at random. They picked them because we are very good at translating mice results to human results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There are at least three more reasons why they are used that I can think of.

1) The mice and rats used for research are heavily inbred so that they are almost identical to one another. That makes testing very predictable and uniform. If one lab rat reacts a certain way to a medicine, then it's a very high probability that all lab rats react the same way.

2) Mice and rats are actually very similar to humans. Not just genetically but also biologically and in terms of behaviour. Because of this they can get a lot of the same diseases humans can get, which is not true for a lot of other animals. 

3) At this point, mice are VERY well understood. We can be pretty confident that if a mice reacts one way, we can predict how a human reacts as well.

 

It kind of bothers me when people go "well they just tested it on mice so it doesn't mean it's true for humans". Scientists didn't decide to use mice at random. They picked them because we are very good at translating mice results to human results.

It is a real issue and I think you're dismissing it a bit too easily.  For one thing, there genuinely are issues with trials from mice converting to the same results on people:

Quote

the utility of the use of rodents in testing for sepsis,[12] burns,[12] inflammation,[12] stroke,[13][14] ALS,[15][16][17] Alzheimer’s,[18] diabetes,[19][20] cancer,[21][22][23][24][25] multiple sclerosis,[26] Parkinson’s disease[26] and other illnesses has been called into question by a number of researchers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing_on_rodents

 

This is due in some cases to genetic and physiological differences, and in some cases simply to poorly run experiments.  Source 16 above gets into this - many trials that initially shows promise later were found to not work.  This directly refutes that mice are "very well understood" and in general that we can predict how outcomes will translate to people.

 

There are also significant reasons for them being used that have nothing to do with how good they are as a human stand-in.  In addition to everything both of us listed above, there is simply such a huge body of work, not to mention a systemic bias toward requiring them to get approval to move forward with other tests, that at this point it doesn't really matter why they were chosen initially, we're kind of stuck using them whether they're good or not.

 

Again, I'm not saying they're useless or all test results using them should be ignored, but the claims do have to be tempered.  It's not baseless dismissal, there's a very real gap between things proven to work a certain way on mice and how they will work on people.


Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Again, I'm not saying they're useless or all test results using them should be ignored, but the claims do have to be tempered.  It's not baseless dismissal, there's a very real gap between things proven to work a certain way on mice and how they will work on people.

When it comes to commenting on the different results in rodents versus humans,  The reality is that unless people understand the reason for the rodent trial and the caveats that have been accounted for specifically in any research, then commenting one way or the other can be rather disingenuous.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When it comes to commenting on the different results in rodents versus humans,  The reality is that unless people understand the reason for the rodent trial and the caveats that have been accounted for specifically in any research, then commenting one way or the other can be rather disingenuous.

Well the reason for the rodent trial is pretty simple and the same in basically every case; it's just how everything is started, for a long list of reasons that has now been mentioned.  From there, if it shows promise, it then has to go on to other trials, up to and including human ones.  If those are good, and others can repeat the results, then we can be pretty sure we've solved it, but until then it's basically "beta research".  It doesn't mean ignore it because it's not people, and it doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to mean it's proven in people.  It means there's early positive signs and more study is worth doing.


Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well the reason for the rodent trial is pretty simple and the same in basically every case; it's just how everything is started, for a long list of reasons that has now been mentioned.  From there, if it shows promise, it then has to go on to other trials, up to and including human ones.  If those are good, and others can repeat the results, then we can be pretty sure we've solved it, but until then it's basically "beta research".  It doesn't mean ignore it because it's not people, and it doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to mean it's proven in people.  It means there's early positive signs and more study is worth doing.

I know why they do them, I also know why they don't and I know many of the criteria set aside for setting up rodent trials.  I have dedicated the last 18 years of my life to reading published articles on everything from behavior, society, education, mental health, medication (specifically SSRI's and amphetamine based medication) and autism.  I don't consider myself to be educated enough to decide when a rodent trial should be considered as relevant or not.  And I deeply suspect very few people on internet forums are either.  

 

Watching people try to dismiss peer reviewed research by dissecting the abstract (or media article on said research) and inferring the researchers didn't account for X,Y and Z because rodent trials are A, B and C never ceases to amaze me.   I don't consider what you are saying to be dismissive as such,  I just find it runs awful close to empowering people to start appraising the research for validity (or lack thereof) when they lack the education and knowledge required to do so.

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr moose said:

or media article on said research

Honestly this is really where a lot of issues start, not the research paper. Too often "our findings show, with a degree of certainty above statistical anomaly, that X.... etc etc" is turned in to media reports of "X causes cancer, research shows". I think it was Last Week Tonight that did a rather amusing montage cut of news and morning shows saying XYZ causes cancer. Like no there is a big ass difference between "UV causes cancer" (we do know this with extreme certainty) and "coffee causes cancer" (link above error shows correlation), correlation != causation so the saying goes.

 

But yea there is lots of flawed research out there, again that ep of Last Week Tonight about it covers many of them (really hope it was that show and not something else I watch). One of the factors I deeply dislike is the requirement from universities that their academics publish papers each year to keep the accreditation and academic standings, this is because number of papers published effects university rankings. Because of this you get junk, waste of time, pointless research that barely qualifies as enough change from the last one to count. I used to know some really great local examples. I do wonder how much time and money gets wasted on this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Honestly this is really where a lot of issues start, not the research paper. Too often "our findings show, with a degree of certainty above statistical anomaly, that X.... etc etc" is turned in to media reports of "X causes cancer, research shows". I think it was Last Week Tonight that did a rather amusing montage cut of news and morning shows saying XYZ causes cancer. Like no there is a big ass difference between "UV causes cancer" (we do know this with extreme certainty) and "coffee causes cancer (link above error shows correlation), correlation != causation so the saying goes.

 

But yea there is lots of flawed research out there, again that ep of Last Week Tonight about it covers many of them (really hope it was that show and not something else I watch). One of the factors I deeply dislike is the requirement from universities that their academics publish papers each year to keep the accreditation and academic standings, this is because number of papers published effects university rankings. Because of this you get junk, waste of time, pointless research that is barely qualifies as enough change from the last one to count. I used to know some really great local examples. I do wonder how much time and money gets wasted on this problem.

I have seen some (quite frankly ghastly) work being published in off journals, stuff so bad it wouldn't even get graded at most universities.  This is why I hope the big journals maintain their stringent publication standards.   Without those the whole institution faces an insanely hard battle trying to explain the difference between good research and bad research to the all consuming plebs with no education on the topic at all.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

In this case it was the BBSRC, which is a public funded organization. It's part of the UK Research and Innovation organization.

There is no bribes or profit motivations involved here. The money comes from taxpayers, not companies.

But yeah, it's important to look at where the money comes from. In this case we probably don't need to worry about there being ulterior motifs.

 

 

 

There are at least three more reasons why they are used that I can think of.

1) The mice and rats used for research are heavily inbred so that they are almost identical to one another. That makes testing very predictable and uniform. If one lab rat reacts a certain way to a medicine, then it's a very high probability that all lab rats react the same way.

2) Mice and rats are actually very similar to humans. Not just genetically but also biologically and in terms of behaviour. Because of this they can get a lot of the same diseases humans can get, which is not true for a lot of other animals. 

3) At this point, mice are VERY well understood. We can be pretty confident that if a mice reacts one way, we can predict how a human reacts as well.

 

 

It kind of bothers me when people go "well they just tested it on mice so it doesn't mean it's true for humans". Scientists didn't decide to use mice at random. They picked them because we are very good at translating mice results to human results.

Which is why I like EU studies more.  They have more of that than the US does.


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a prominent advocate of both light themes - e.g light backgrounds/no dark themes - as well as a user of blue light filters on my PC, laptop, phone, and any electronic device that supports it, not going to lie, the headline had me intrigued.

I've been using blue light filters for easily 1/3 of my life now and I'm heavily in favour of blue light filters affecting my nighttime wind-downs to sleep, especialy since I'm a minor insomniac.

 

From my perspective, I believe the reason blue light filters works is because it shows hotter tones which are subdued and appear less vivid and bright than the normal blue LED colder tones which are harsh and bright.

Being a person who uses blue light filters as well as lowering the brightness at night (from my already low brightness on my devices) I might be in the minority who is using blue light filters in an unconventional way given their original intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have the blue light thing on my phone for the evenings, and turning it off now makes it feel a bit bluer than usual (maybe because i'm in an environment where there are warm lights)

 

i'll turn it off for a month or so to see what's what. i've been turning down the brightness manually anyway, so if i feel like it doesn't make a difference i'll keep it off just to save a step when adjusting photos at night

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The study suggest that instead to use brighter light during the day, and dimmer light in the evening to help you sleep.

This is something that should be automatic in monitors like in cell phones, where the brightness is adjusted automatically with the amount of surrounding light. I'm kinda surprised its not come up yet?

 

Not a lot of people know this but when you drive at night you should dim your dashboard to allow you to see better and further. This applies mostly outside of cities.

 

@LinusTech

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to game late into the night when this "blue light" wasn't even a thing and I never had problems sleeping. I also prefer cool white lights and my systems always had blue status lights and in the past I even had one LianLi case with blue intake fans that emitted some blue light in the front, albeit little since I ran them at low RPM, so low light too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
26 minutes ago, exetras said:

This is something that should be automatic in monitors like in cell phones, where the brightness is adjusted automatically with the amount of surrounding light. I'm kinda surprised its not come up yet?

Yea, monitors don't have ambient light sensors. This is probably because the manufactures sees no marketable value in this. I disagree.

 

Quote

Not a lot of people know this but when you drive at night you should dim your dashboard to allow you to see better and further. This applies mostly outside of cities.

Modern cars all or nearly all (at least in Canada and US), do adjust the screen(s) and interior lighting based on outside light. They tend to reasonably balance visibility of buttons and not blinding you with bright screens at night

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really used it though, didn't like such a color change, I'd rather lower brightness way down it's better so. Also I don't get those that use like Gunners for PC too, just why. I look at monitor pretty much most of the day and never saw a need for such. Then again I'm not a moron to use a display in pitch black room as a sole source o light. 


Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure on this, every day there's a new study that claims something that gets disproved by another study 


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlSWCo7VFPz2ygw4a5YYS

 

 

 


 

Spoiler
Spoiler

Intel i7 4790K (4.0 GHz) | MSI Z97-GAMING 5 | Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1866 2x8GB | Asus GeForce GTX 780 Ti DirectCU II OC | Samsung 840 Pro Series 256GB | Corsair RM 850W | Corsair H90 94.0 CFM | Logitech® Wireless Combo MK330 | Cooler Master HAF XM | Dell S2240L 60Hz 21.5 IPS | 

PCPartPicker 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
15 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

not sure on this, every day there's a new study that claims something that gets disproved by another study 

Well they are a few factors. 2 of them I can name.

For one, there is the question of challenge, as in, challenging ones research data, conclusions and method used. Flaws are found and new idea comes in. This is normal. A research is usually made by a team that usually honestly do their best. But like security systems in the PC world, nothing is full proof, and things using new ideas and approaches are pointed out, or flaws from a research are noted. When the "blue light is bad for you" research came in in hype in the media, people took immediate action (especially entrepreneurs who saw dollar signs by selling over priced glasses to consumers who rushed purchase them). Validity of a research takes time. In the medical field, a simple medication can easily take 10 years before it gets in the hands of consumers. Lots of validity and side-effect tracking needs to take place (and still new side effect are found after a medication is release).

 

I am sure that a new research will soon come out and disprove the one mentioned here. And I am sure another one that will followed using different testing methods will re-disprove the one that disproved this one. In a way, I guess one can see research as an argument based on facts. You'll have counter arguments as well.

 

Another factor is, in my opinion, flawed university rating model. People like to rank universities with simple score system, and sadly that is idiotic, at the very least, the way teh scoring works. For example, poor performing students is seen as a positive to the university, hence why universities tend to apply the funnel effect (start with massive classes, and in your final class, you are in a room smaller or the same size as you where in high-school). It seen as a positive, not because professors sucks at their teaching, but rather it is seen as "professors are perfect, and can perfectly make all students understand without exception, and the failure is due to the 'high-challenge' of the classes". This is none-sense.

So back to this topic, universities are pushing professors to release research studies, as the more one has per year, the better the university score is. Quality of the research is not put into consideration. Now you can say "But publication journals, surely wants quality", and that is true.. until the journals realized that what get subscribers is a large database, and not quality as much. So it is a balancing act that they perform.

 

So if, blue light filter helps a person, then great! It could be a placebo effect, sure, but in the end it genuinely helps the person. Or the reason it helps the user is maybe not because of the blue light being reduced itself, but an unexpected side effect that help (like reduction of the screen illumination as you have more light being blocked from the LCD panel), or it is true, and this study mentioned is no good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×