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

[Blue4130]

23 minutes ago, moatmote said:

Even for myopia, recent studies have shifted focus to lack of regular exposure to sunlight (or any sufficiently bright light source) as the leading cause,

So let me get this straight, you are saying that darkness causes myopia...

 

(no I am not serious. But this topic is just that silly)

[VascoM]

Nitpicking king…get a life

[Arika]

31 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

So let me get this straight, you are saying that darkness causes myopia...

Can we just agree that eyesight causes myopia?

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 minutes ago, Arika said:

Can we just agree that eyesight causes myopia?

That assumes people who are blind from birth can't develop the same physiological characteristics exhibited by myopia, even if they don't suffer the consequences. Where's your scientific literature that states that only sighted people can develop myopia? /s

[moatmote]

1 hour ago, Blue4130 said:

So let me get this straight, you are saying that darkness causes myopia...

 

(no I am not serious. But this topic is just that silly)

Yes, and I'm not the only one: 

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678505/
• https://www.optometrists.org/general-practice-optometry/guide-to-myopia-management/myopia-management/myopia-management-is-daylight-the-answer/
• https://www.aao.org/education/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces-myopia-in-children
• https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/facing-the-myopia-epidemic

From that last one:

Quote

Although the influence of near work remains an unsettled ques­tion, Dr. Miller still encourages his patients to take breaks when they read or play computer games, for instance. He promotes the Academy’s 20-20-20 tip: That is, take a 20-second break to look 20 feet away for every 20 minutes of near work.

 

At this time, myopia experts feel that out-door activity is protective and may be more im­portant than curtailing near work, said Dr. Tan. But there may simply be an interplay between near activity and lack of time outdoors. “That’s because children who are spending a lot of time doing near work and playing computer games are not outdoors.”

 

Almost every study on myopia that focuses on technology use fails to distinguish "screen time" from just not being outdoors. They all say "well we found that people who used screens more showed more signs of myopia" without ever acknowledging that people who used screens more also stayed indoors more, or testing specifically for screen use outdoors, non-screen use indoors, etc. However, studies that don't focus on technology, but rather focus on near work activities in general all pretty much agree that any kind of near work could potentially be a risk factor, not screens in particular.

 

This study even admits that with the current research that's been done, there's not enough data to establish a statistical link between screens specifically and myopia, and also points out that:

Quote

myopia prevalence increased before the massive use of digital devices in some countries

 

[moatmote]

31 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That assumes people who are blind from birth can't develop the same physiological characteristics exhibited by myopia, even if they don't suffer the consequences. Where's your scientific literature that states that only sighted people can develop myopia? /s

That would depend on the method of blindness, of course. Someone who had their eyeballs removed by the mob is statistically unlikely to develop the physiological characteristics exhibited by myopia.

[A_Social]

Oh well..
I also wanted to follow a career of a man who artificially goes on a fake rampage about an absolute bullshit in order to destroy the company he hates so damn much. Unfortunately, it turns out that this segment of the market is already full.

[WolframaticAlpha]

I wanted to say get a life but I am a bit bored so let's play my favourite game, spot the bullshit!

 

On 8/31/2023 at 2:20 AM, 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 , .

Look: Ambiguous fallacy

 

OPs entire argument is disingenuous. I suspect that they either have spent too much time on reddit or are a troll. In case of the former,

 

Inb4 a post on reddit/Twitter how everyone on the forum is an LTT fanboy who can't fathom their "brilliant" criticism /s

[emothxughts]

"Mom, can't go for dinner now, I have a fricken tech media company to destroy!!!"

[Basti0815]

On 8/30/2023 at 10:50 PM, 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:

Any eye doctor will tell you that using brightly lit monitors is bad for your eye health.

[moatmote]

3 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

I wanted to say get a life but I am a bit bored so let's play my favourite game, spot the bullshit!

 

Look: Ambiguous fallacy

 

OPs entire argument is disingenuous. I suspect that they either have spent too much time on reddit or are a troll. In case of the former,

 

Inb4 a post on reddit/Twitter how everyone on the forum is an LTT fanboy who can't fathom their "brilliant" criticism /s

How the hell is this an ambiguity fallacy? I'm not drawing a conclusion from an interpretation of ambiguous wording. 

 

What exactly do you think my argument is here?

 

13 minutes ago, Basti0815 said:

Any eye doctor will tell you that using brightly lit monitors is bad for your eye health.

And speaking of fallacies, here's an actual appeal to authority. Just going to ignore the multiple articles and studies I linked, huh?

[Basti0815]

1 hour ago, moatmote said:

And speaking of fallacies, here's an actual appeal to authority. Just going to ignore the multiple articles and studies I linked, huh?

Boy, do whatever you like.

[Erioch]

Man, just let it go already.

[moatmote]

48 minutes ago, Erioch said:

Man, just let it go already.

I have just as much of a right to respond to criticisms (and blatant misportrayals of my statements) on my own thread as you have to make them.

[Erioch]

1 hour ago, moatmote said:

I have just as much of a right to respond to criticisms (and blatant misportrayals of my statements) on my own thread as you have to make them.

We have no rights on this forum and it was just a suggestion to everyone.

[Cooldoe]

9 hours ago, moatmote said:

 

 

And speaking of fallacies, here's an actual appeal to authority. Just going to ignore the multiple articles and studies I linked, huh?

And how many studies proven to be false or complete BS?

 

MSG studies?

Behaviour physiology research?

[moatmote]

32 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

And how many studies proven to be false or complete BS?

 

MSG studies?

Behaviour physiology research?

Ah yes. "Some studies in the past have been flawed/misguided/faked, therefore all studies should be dismissed and never be considered as evidence."

[Cooldoe]

1 minute ago, moatmote said:

Ah yes. "Some studies in the past have been flawed/misguided/faked, therefore all studies should be dismissed and never be considered as evidence."

Not misguided 'sponsored ' is more correct in term.

 

Not to mention the studies conclusion can different from the news headline it was published on.

 

If you want to be that nitpicking you should nitpick on the study as well right?

Especially there are the one that suppose to give us the authority on fact not just some youtube video.

 

Linus is not a scientist or engineer and their branding never been on factual science . So your nitpicking clearly on the wrong channels, especially when there are many science youtube that published even more misleading statement

 

the video is about E-ink tech and the claim from e-ink tech product. Linus is testing for people that believe in that blue light can harm eye to see if this technology is a good substitute and he clearly highlight their disadvantages and advantages. 

 

 

[moatmote]

2 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

Not to mention the studies conclusion can different from the news headline it was published on.

Which is why I linked studies directly and also limited any "news" type articles to scientific/medical sources.

 

4 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

Linus is testing for people that believe in that blue light can harm eye to see if this technology is a good substitute and he clearly highlight their disadvantages and advantages. 

Was the term "blue light" ever once used in this video? Legitimately not certain but I'm inclined to say no based on memory. It seemed pretty clear to me that their focus was on digital eye strain, not the effects of blue light.

[Legitsu]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[emothxughts]

How many dabloons they paying you to beef with people here in this forum?

[IkeaGnome]

2 hours ago, emothxughts said:

How many dabloons they paying you to beef with people here in this forum?

Enough for it to be their full time job. 

[Error 52]

 

On 9/1/2023 at 8:10 AM, moatmote said:

Yes, and I'm not the only one: 

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678505/
• https://www.optometrists.org/general-practice-optometry/guide-to-myopia-management/myopia-management/myopia-management-is-daylight-the-answer/
• https://www.aao.org/education/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces-myopia-in-children
• https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/facing-the-myopia-epidemic

From that last one:

 

Almost every study on myopia that focuses on technology use fails to distinguish "screen time" from just not being outdoors. They all say "well we found that people who used screens more showed more signs of myopia" without ever acknowledging that people who used screens more also stayed indoors more, or testing specifically for screen use outdoors, non-screen use indoors, etc. However, studies that don't focus on technology, but rather focus on near work activities in general all pretty much agree that any kind of near work could potentially be a risk factor, not screens in particular.

 

This study even admits that with the current research that's been done, there's not enough data to establish a statistical link between screens specifically and myopia, and also points out that:

 

 

 

[amphobius]

Man, this thread is the epitome of why the phrase "touch grass" exists

[wanderingfool2]

On 9/1/2023 at 7:07 PM, Cooldoe said:

Linus is not a scientist or engineer and their branding never been on factual science . So your nitpicking clearly on the wrong channels, especially when there are many science youtube that published even more misleading statement

 

the video is about E-ink tech and the claim from e-ink tech product. Linus is testing for people that believe in that blue light can harm eye to see if this technology is a good substitute and he clearly highlight their disadvantages and advantages. 

While I do disagree with the statement the OP claimed, and do think he's focusing on the wrong aspect...LTT did take the break for accuracy and correctness; so they could make sure material they are posting is more correct.

 

They even listed sources in the current video during their debunking of the products claim.

 

The problem is, a lot of sources they quoted do not actually relate to the claim that was presented (i.e. the general comparison of degree of eyestrain between eINK and LCD).  Instead it focused on the general causes of eyestrain; and not the severity (at least the first 2 sources which they used against it).

 

So while they might not be a science channel, it's simply disgusting that they didn't do a basic google search to verify their rebuttal.

 

You can view the studies and a longer explanation here