Yet more misleading reporting from LTT. (And still no transparent issue tracker to report these things.)

[kurangak]

5 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

You must have a gigantic collection of nits because you are king in picking them.

i should use this more in the future

[manikyath]

7 hours ago, moatmote said:

That's been debunked as well FYI. There is literally 0 evidence of any long term effects of staring at displays at any distance from any recent studies.

if only you could distinguish between " this health problem has become extremely common" and immediately going for causation. it's like you just knee-jerk jump to conclusions that make everyone wrong.

7 hours ago, moatmote said:

After watching the intro, it's not hard to imagine that many people will be thinking "Oh I wonder if light from monitors is actually a problem that could lead to permanent vision damage and if E Ink is the answer. Let me keep watching to find out!" And upon hearing "E Ink still causes eye strain" at the end, reaching the conclusion "Oh they said E Ink still causes eye strain because of <stuff about focusing>, so the light wasn't the culprit and both technologies could lead to permanent damage to my vision because they both cause digital eye strain."

oh yes, people click a video about a terrible monitor to learn about eyestrain.

 

in case you actually, entirely missed the point, here is what it is:

Quote

there is no priven link between reducing eyestrain and e-ink displays. you should follow the 20-20-20 rule if you actually want to be healthy about computer use.

besides that, this monitor is really cool for the niche it falls into, but the price makes it even more niche.

beyond that, LTT isnt the channel for 40 minute long exposé pieces, they tell you enough to get you going, and if you want to deep dive, there's plenty of material from actual research on the topic.

[moatmote]

12 minutes ago, manikyath said:

if only you could distinguish between " this health problem has become extremely common" and immediately going for causation. it's like you just knee-jerk jump to conclusions that make everyone wrong.

Are you blind? The person I was responding to was literally talking about causation:

8 hours ago, manikyath said:

the thing here is that near-sightedness is *THE* problem to solve among computer users, supposedly caused by the strain of using a display

[rickyc12s]

11 hours ago, moatmote said:

The recent video on the Dasung E Ink monitor starts with a misleading intro that heavily implies permanent eye damage might result from using traditional monitors:

No it doesn't. 

 

Quote

Your eyes are delicate instruments. One wrong move and you could damage them for life, which makes you kind of wonder: "Could blasting them with light from our monitors be hurting them? Is there a better solution?"

One wrong move and you could damage them for life - Pretty clear this is talking about staring at a solar eclipse, or a welding arc etc

Could blasting them with light from our monitors be hurting them? - Pretty clearly says hurting not damaging, let alone 'permanently'

 

11 hours ago, moatmote said:

Are traditional monitors permanently damaging your vision and is E Ink the "better solution"? 

Correct. Because monitors 'permanently damaging your vision' was never asked

[Error 52]

I believe under the new error guidelines this would fall under: "Very Low Severity - No Action"

[Absentia13]

I didn't find the new video very interesting and I'm def on GN's side with the controversy, but this is silly. Wait for an actual real issue to jump on something; this isn't it. 

[DadT3ch]

This is borderline techkaren type levels of nitpickery.

[suits]

This is such a bad take. And it was recorded a month ago. Go spend your energy somewhere else.

 

Not only that but you clearly wrote an essay without understanding how to write an essay. You can't claim "Linus claims normal monitors do eye damage!!!!" When they dispute those claims in the video. Seriously, just such a bad take. 

[fartmuncher69_420]

Could you imagine if they did a video on getting hibernation to work?

 

Quote

Will beating your head against a brick wall cause permanent brain damage? We're seeing how well Windows manages hibernation on these five laptops.

OP would get mad that they don't even mention brain damage again.

[Stahlmann]

It's true though. You can permanently damage your eyes pretty easily.

[Avocado Diaboli]

There are two possible replies to this thread, depending on how the waveform decides to collapse.

 

Reply 1:
This is a covert inside job, where someone tries to impersonate LTT critics in the most abysmal manner possible to make it seem like everybody who has legitimate grievances is just some nitpicky weirdo.

 

Reply 2:

[Needfuldoer]

23 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

It's true though. You can permanently damage your eyes pretty easily.

"And remember this, there is no more important safety rule than to wear these, safety glasses."

 

- Norm Abram

 

 

[Erioch]

This is the kind of garbage you get when you want the audience to "fact check".

 

 

[moatmote]

1 hour ago, suits said:

You can't claim "Linus claims normal monitors do eye damage!!!!" When they dispute those claims in the video. Seriously, just such a bad take. 

Except that's not what I claimed at all. God people can't read. 

[Skipple]

1 minute ago, moatmote said:

Except that's not what I claimed at all. God people can't read. 

You will have to forgive us. Everyone here has damaged vision from staring at a screen all day. 

[agatong439]

Welcome to the era where now every video we are going to get some type of this style of post. 

Its going to be fun. 

[moatmote]

2 hours ago, suits said:

You can't claim "Linus claims normal monitors do eye damage!!!!" When they dispute those claims in the video. Seriously, just such a bad take. 

Also, they never actually dispute that claim (which they never directly made, as it was only used as a question to set the tone of the video) as you claim they do. They dispute that E Ink reduces digital eye strain or is better for people with myopia.

 

So you conflating the two completely different things in your head just goes to show that viewers will easily conflate different issues with little nuance if presented in a way that seems to link them together, exactly as I said:

 

17 hours ago, moatmote said:

However, the well-informed or critically thinking among you may have already caught the problem with this section: It doesn't actually answer the questions they asked at the begining. Are traditional monitors permanently damaging your vision and is E Ink the "better solution"? All they've done here is establish that E Ink doesn't help with nearsightedness and digital eye strain.

 

The problem is that most people aren't going to catch this distinction. To most people watching this, the intro told them that something about light-emitting displays could permanently damage their eyes, and then asked if E Ink was the solution to this. Then, the chapter quoted above answered that question with a definitive "No, it's not just light-emitting displays. E Ink is not the 'solution'.", while talking a whole lot about "digital eye strain" all of a sudden. This directly correlates (in most people's minds) "digital eye strain" with "permanent eye damage", which is extremely misleading, as there is zero evidence that supports any correlation between the two.

 

[wanderingfool2]

34 minutes ago, moatmote said:

Also, they never actually dispute that claim (which they never directly made, as it was only used as a question to set the tone of the video) as you claim they do. They dispute that E Ink reduces digital eye strain or is better for people with myopia.

The eye-strain and myopia are the general things that people do attribute to having a bright monitor/etc.  So in that regards it does address what they said at the beginning...but anyways; that one isn't too bad though since it's just a simple hyperbole/sensationalization (which is okay, as they still pretty much addressed what was said by talking about eye-strain).

 

The question to ask is how much did they actually look into the claims though; or did they just do a google search and found the results they were looking for without asking the company if they had sources to their claims.

 

I still would say though, they should be adding disclaimers to when they purchased, were lent, or given a product though (even if it's a small disclosure at the end like thanks _ for providing us with).

 

They used to do it for the tech under $100 stuff.  When it gets to the point of them saying featuring/reviewing a product drives sales for that particular product,  things should be disclosed.

[manikyath]

9 hours ago, moatmote said:

Are you blind? The person I was responding to was literally talking about causation:

you must misunderstand the word "supposedly"

17 hours ago, manikyath said:

supposedly caused by the strain of using a display.

Quote

adverb: supposedly

according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement).

you said it was alledging causation, when the statement is doubting what is alledged.

 

i'm all for debating just how far into the "alledged" health impact of computer use LMG should dive, and in what sort of content pieces that should exist.. but if a basic understanding of english is getting in the way, a debate isnt gonna get far.

[moatmote]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

but if a basic understanding of english is getting in the way, a debate isnt gonna get far.

Not to be a dick about it, but I don't think you should be lecturing me about a basic understanding of English if you can't understand that your usage of "supposedly" can be interpreted multiple ways, and that "often" doesn't mean "always".

[manikyath]

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I still would say though, they should be adding disclaimers to when they purchased, were lent, or given a product though (even if it's a small disclosure at the end like thanks _ for providing us with).

there's this thing in makeup tutorials i've seen talked about, it's basicly icons in the corner of the video that appear when a product is introduced, and the icons make statements such as:

- this company is a sponsor in general (for example, they have sponsor integrations in other videos)

- this product was sent by the company free of charge without strings attached

- this product was purchased

- this product was sent by the company with the express purpose for it to be used in videos

 

maybe there would be validity to an icon system for tech videos? i'm sure that tech youtubers as a whole can agree on an icon set to use "as a community".

[Middcore]

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, 'Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye,' and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." 

[wanderingfool2]

8 minutes ago, manikyath said:

there's this thing in makeup tutorials i've seen talked about, it's basicly icons in the corner of the video that appear when a product is introduced, and the icons make statements such as:

- this company is a sponsor in general (for example, they have sponsor integrations in other videos)

- this product was sent by the company free of charge without strings attached

- this product was purchased

- this product was sent by the company with the express purpose for it to be used in videos

 

maybe there would be validity to an icon system for tech videos? i'm sure that tech youtubers as a whole can agree on an icon set to use "as a community".

Doesn't even need to necessarily be a standard; just as long as it's standard for the channel itself (or a quick one liner at the end)

 

I'm going to go out on a limb though and say you are a Tom Scott fan (or at least watched his video)...but hey; I brought up the general concept of disclosure and was essentially told by Linus that they don't have to and the concept of "functioning brainstem" can figure it out. (Despite the fact they did get it from different sources in the past)

[manikyath]

Just now, moatmote said:

Not to be a dick about it, but I don't think you should be lecturing me about a basic understanding of English if you can't understand that your usage of "supposedly" can be interpreted multiple ways, and that "often" doesn't mean "always".

should i be lecturing you on context and nitpicking then? because just before the quoted line i'm calling it a myth.

Quote

 there exists this myth that the fact the display outputs light is the sole reason why displays cause eye strain (and as a result, a potential for hurting your eyesight)

 

and just for completeness sake:

Quote

Noun: myth

a widely held but false belief or idea.

it could be presumed from context that when i use the word "myth", that i'm using the word "supposedly" within the doubting context. also - "supposedly" never enforces a truth, it means "something which is generally believed". each of the synonyms i could have used here has a different connotation, i've elected to choose the one most suitable to my viewpoint on the matter: doubt.

 

either way - i'm not alledging causation, that's a fabrication on your part, or a basic misunderstanding of the word "supposedly". i'll leave it to you which of the two you want it to be.

[moatmote]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

should i be lecturing you on context and nitpicking then? because just before the quoted line i'm calling it a myth.

 

and just for completeness sake:

it could be presumed from context that when i use the word "myth", that i'm using the word "supposedly" within the doubting context. also - "supposedly" never enforces a truth, it means "something which is generally believed". each of the synonyms i could have used here has a different connotation, i've elected to choose the one most suitable to my viewpoint on the matter: doubt.

 

either way - i'm not alledging causation, that's a fabrication on your part, or a basic misunderstanding of the word "supposedly". i'll leave it to you which of the two you want it to be.

So you're just going to pretend like that wasn't in a completely different paragraph and that you shifted focus from eye strain to nearsightedness between the two?

18 hours ago, manikyath said:

it suggests that there might be an extremely common misconception that light-emitting displays cause eye damage. i've heard this at every step of the way towards my career in IT, and at every corner of my IT career. there exists this myth that the fact the display outputs light is the sole reason why displays cause eye strain (and as a result, a potential for hurting your eyesight)

 

the thing here is that near-sightedness is *THE* problem to solve among computer users, supposedly caused by the strain of using a display.