After 4+ years of searing retinas, Google finally agrees that dark modes help battery life (and saves your eyes)

[Amazonsucks]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

How the hell did you conclude that?

 

My point was simple,  the effects of anything on the Human body are complex and cannot merely be simplified to "well it works on rats".

 

My point was directly in context with people who claim all sorts of things because that's what they've heard.  At no point have I claimed any of that which you have said.

 

 

Oh so then you dont include the rhodopsin mediated photo reversal or increased ROS production in the retina with the warfarin analogy?

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Oh so then you dont include the rhodopsin mediated photo reversal or increased ROS production in the retina with the warfarin analogy?

Nothing in my post was about causality.  I neither made claims regarding whether headaches could be or could not be caused by any light source.  I was pointing out flaws in peoples responses to such topics based on the ignorance of failing to understand what they are reading. 

 

To be honest I am not in the mood for "I'm so smart, look at me" conversation tonight.  If you have nothing to say that actually addresses what I said then stop trying to impress people with your immense googling skills.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Nothing in my post was about causality.  I neither made claims regarding whether headaches could be or could not be caused by any light source.  I was pointing out flaws in peoples responses to such topics based on the ignorance of failing to understand what they are reading. 

 

To be honest I am not in the mood for "I'm so smart, look at me" conversation tonight.  If you have nothing to say that actually addresses what I said then stop trying to impress people with your immense googling skills.

Wow you are so condescending its actually amazing for a multitude of reasons. "Immense googling skills"? Really? You don't think there might be some other reason that i happen to specifically know about the issue of blue light related retinal damage? You're actually accusing me of googling the stuff i was just talking about, even though i have weighed in on the specific topic of blue light and retinal damage several times before?

 

Ok then, by your own "logic", i guess that means you have no real knowledge about the myriad of subjects you discuss in any of your immensely condescending posts and you're just using your "googling skills" to make yourself sound smart, right? Even though i have broken down the biological processes involved regarding blue light in plain English in previous threads, i must just be googling it, right? Makes sense...

 

I agree that most people probably misinterpret the data and misunderstand the way things work. However, the whole eye damage from blue light is actually straightforward AF and i explained it in detail. Its not hard to understand how either process works really, even with basic biology knowledge, especially since i defined and described it in plain English.

 

But you see, what you actually do in your posts is not to say ANYTHING definitively. You make a vague statement which makes it seem like nobody knows anything about the subject being discussed.

 

I never mentioned people getting headaches as the result of blue light btw. I mentioned retinal damage.

 

Saying what amounts to "well theres no way to really know because rats arent humans and warfarin(an anticoagulant that can kill humans too) is used as both rat poison and medicine." That is just muddying the waters at best.

 

And then when i specifically explain or correct things like the extraterrestrial solar SPD graph another person erroneously posted, or give a detailed explanation of how something works its just "googling skills" and "im so smart look at me"? 

 

That is your MO though. You usually do resort to ad hominem attacks, trolling and insulting language like that when you're wrong in an attempt to get the other poster to reply in kind, and since you are obviously one of the posters on here whose ad hominem and insults are protected and allowed, you get rid of the other side of the argument even if the other person is objectively correct, if they were to say something to you which is no worse than what you say to others on here first. You do it in a subtle enough way that you can be allowed to get away with it, and i have witnessed that a few times. Nice try baiting with the "im so smart" and "googling skills" comments

 

So, to recap: warfarin is an anticoagulant in both rats and humans and if you overdosed someone on it they'd bleed out just like a rat from the anticoagulant effect.

 

Its a poor example because you can kill a human or a rat with either thing. If you really wanted to sound smart, you could have used an even better example like chocolate, which contains theobromine. Humans can metabolize it but other animals cant, so it can kill animals but is fine for humans. You needent go to warfarin which can kill either humans or rats.

 

And yet the metabolism of theobromine is not proof of a negative that the processes of rhodopsin mediated photoreversal(sorry for big words but its what its called) and increased ROS production dont happen in humans. 

 

I think that addressed the flawed warfarin analogy and causality issues?

 

 

 

 

[Canada EH]

What "study" did Google pay for for this PR gig?

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Saying what amounts to "well theres no way to really know because rats arent humans and warfarin(an anticoagulant that can kill humans too) is used as both rat poison and medicine." That is just muddying the waters at best.

You're still missing the point of what was originally addressed, you do know it was addressing nothing about what your talking about at all? Nor was it directed at you either for that matter. Studies on animals have only ever been indicative of something, to gain safety approval for human testing. Only human testing can give something approaching conclusiveness for humans, not rats.

 

History is littered with catastrophic damaging results when we think we know something, acting on indications has caused myriad of problems and deaths because someone thought they fully understood something and in reality did not.

 

Warfarin, a substance developed to kill rats has an unintended use case in the medical field for treating humans. A study could find a wavelength of light blinds rats but does not for humans.

 

It's like every comment someone makes, that does or does not even address points you were making, is an affront to you and is arguing the opposite or against you. Sometimes someone might want to make a point or raise an opinion that has nothing to do with yours or is against what you have been saying.

[Amazonsucks]

On 11/9/2018 at 7:22 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

The retinal damage study was done on rats. Any study done on rats doesn't necessarily mean it has the same effects on humans, at least at the scales tested. Not to mention that this is a relatively new field of study, so there's no real conclusive evidence on the long term effects of what we expose ourselves to. We only have a link that blue light may cause damage.

 

Besides that, we're exposed to blue light all the time. What do you think that big ball of fire in the sky is producing?

That was @M.Yurizaki replying to me about blue light, to which the reply to him/her from @mr moosewas:

On 11/10/2018 at 6:07 AM, mr moose said:

I keep pointing people to warfarin when they raise studies on rats.  Yep, it kills rats but it keeps many humans alive.  Somethings crossover and something don't.  It's a foundation to work from, not a concrete fact about humans.

So, @leadeater it seems that it was in regards to the blue light retinal damage actually. And it was not me who butted in by replying to a comment directed at someone else so i hope you'll acknowledge that:

 

"It's like every comment someone makes, that does or does not even address points you were making, is an affront to you and is arguing the opposite or against you. Sometimes someone might want to make a point or raise an opinion that has nothing to do with yours or is against what you have been saying."

 

That should probably have been directed at the person who did actually butt in, no?

 

And you just repeated what he did: made more vague assertions not based on scientific data at all.

 

The fact that blue visible light causes increased reactive oxygen species production in human tissue isnt controversial, and there are even medical treatments based on that very phenomenon: blue light acne treatments for example(for which protective eyewear is used because blue light damages the retina).

 

And the warfarin example is so incredibly, obviously flawed but i guess ill try to explain it one more time... Its not that warfarin magically kills rats and is good for humans. It does the same thing to both: prevents blood from clotting. Give someone a massive dose of an anticoagulant drug like warfarin and they will die from the same thing that kills the rat!

 

That is the inherent flaw in the analogy. Warfarin is just an anticoagulant, and taking excessive amounts of it will kill a rat or a human in the same way: by making them bleed to death.

 

So its really not like warfarin is somehow bad for rats and good for humans at all. The dosage in relation to body weight is what makes it a rat poison or a human medication. Its got the same effect on both species.

 

The same is true for the blue light thing. So no, you wont find some magical wavelength of light that damages rat eyes but is fine for humans really. Some species have additional structures in the eye that could block most blue light. Some birds have yellowish carotenoid rich oil droplets in front of their retinal pigment epithelium, which filters blue light and increases their distance visual acuity. If humans had those(mammals dont) then perhaps it would be a different story. 

 

The fact that warfarin has the same effect through the same basic mechanism in rats as it does in humans reinforces what i was saying if anything. I hope you guys realized this whole time that warfarin kills rats by being a powerful anticoagulant, which is exactly what it is in humans as well, and that its the dosage that makes the poison... 

[TopHatProductions115]

@Amazonsucks I don't intend to be a backseat moderator, but I think the thread is supposed to be about what Google did, in reference to the effects of Dark Mode on battery life (especially for devices with non-back-lit panels, like OLED). The blue light topic can be discussed in another thread if it truly is that important. It's edging on derailment IMO, and I'm pretty sure that M.Yurizaki did not need yet another mention/notif for you to get your point across. Besides, I asked you about this very topic in a recent Status Update, and you haven't answered there yet. Perhaps there is conclusive evidence for your claims. But it belongs in a dedicated thread, rather than in a thread for a completely different discussion point.

 

Now, pertaining to the topic at hand, I think something like this may be in order for people who can't officially get Android Pie on their devices (ie. Nexus 6P). Any other 3rd-party alternatives that may work as well or better would be appreciated, though.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

And the warfarin example is so incredibly, obviously flawed but i guess ill try to explain it one more time... Its not that warfarin magically kills rats and is good for humans. It does the same thing to both: prevents blood from clotting. Give someone a massive dose of an anticoagulant drug like warfarin and they will die from the same thing that kills the rat!

 

That is the inherent flaw in the analogy. Warfarin is just an anticoagulant, and taking excessive amounts of it will kill a rat or a human in the same way: by making them bleed to death.

There is no flaw in the example because the example is not what you're saying it is. Again no one is saying a large dose won't kill either. The example is unintentional use cases, effects or consequences. Hell I even told you the medical use of it came form someone trying to kill themselves with it and what saved him was large dose of vitamin K, so obviously I know it'll kill any mammal with the dose required to do so.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Wow you are so condescending its actually amazing for a multitude of reasons. "Immense googling skills"? Really? You don't think there might be some other reason that i happen to specifically know about the issue of blue light related retinal damage? You're actually accusing me of googling the stuff i was just talking about, even though i have weighed in on the specific topic of blue light and retinal damage several times before?

 

Ok then, by your own "logic", i guess that means you have no real knowledge about the myriad of subjects you discuss in any of your immensely condescending posts and you're just using your "googling skills" to make yourself sound smart, right? Even though i have broken down the biological processes involved regarding blue light in plain English in previous threads, i must just be googling it, right? Makes sense...

 

I agree that most people probably misinterpret the data and misunderstand the way things work. However, the whole eye damage from blue light is actually straightforward AF and i explained it in detail. Its not hard to understand how either process works really, even with basic biology knowledge, especially since i defined and described it in plain English.

 

But you see, what you actually do in your posts is not to say ANYTHING definitively. You make a vague statement which makes it seem like nobody knows anything about the subject being discussed.

 

I never mentioned people getting headaches as the result of blue light btw. I mentioned retinal damage.

 

Saying what amounts to "well theres no way to really know because rats arent humans and warfarin(an anticoagulant that can kill humans too) is used as both rat poison and medicine." That is just muddying the waters at best.

 

And then when i specifically explain or correct things like the extraterrestrial solar SPD graph another person erroneously posted, or give a detailed explanation of how something works its just "googling skills" and "im so smart look at me"? 

 

That is your MO though. You usually do resort to ad hominem attacks, trolling and insulting language like that when you're wrong in an attempt to get the other poster to reply in kind, and since you are obviously one of the posters on here whose ad hominem and insults are protected and allowed, you get rid of the other side of the argument even if the other person is objectively correct, if they were to say something to you which is no worse than what you say to others on here first. You do it in a subtle enough way that you can be allowed to get away with it, and i have witnessed that a few times. Nice try baiting with the "im so smart" and "googling skills" comments

 

So, to recap: warfarin is an anticoagulant in both rats and humans and if you overdosed someone on it they'd bleed out just like a rat from the anticoagulant effect.

 

Its a poor example because you can kill a human or a rat with either thing. If you really wanted to sound smart, you could have used an even better example like chocolate, which contains theobromine. Humans can metabolize it but other animals cant, so it can kill animals but is fine for humans. You needent go to warfarin which can kill either humans or rats.

 

And yet the metabolism of theobromine is not proof of a negative that the processes of rhodopsin mediated photoreversal(sorry for big words but its what its called) and increased ROS production dont happen in humans. 

 

I think that addressed the flawed warfarin analogy and causality issues?

 

 

 

 

I get the impression I could have said chocolate tastes nice and you'd be equally offended raising just as many pointless arguments that make no difference to what I said.

 

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

That was @M.Yurizaki replying to me about blue light, to which the reply to him/her from @mr moosewas:

So, @leadeater it seems that it was in regards to the blue light retinal damage actually. And it was not me who butted in by replying to a comment directed at someone else so i hope you'll acknowledge that:

 

"It's like every comment someone makes, that does or does not even address points you were making, is an affront to you and is arguing the opposite or against you. Sometimes someone might want to make a point or raise an opinion that has nothing to do with yours or is against what you have been saying."

 

That should probably have been directed at the person who did actually butt in, no?

 

And you just repeated what he did: made more vague assertions not based on scientific data at all.

 

The fact that blue visible light causes increased reactive oxygen species production in human tissue isnt controversial, and there are even medical treatments based on that very phenomenon: blue light acne treatments for example(for which protective eyewear is used because blue light damages the retina).

 

And the warfarin example is so incredibly, obviously flawed but i guess ill try to explain it one more time... Its not that warfarin magically kills rats and is good for humans. It does the same thing to both: prevents blood from clotting. Give someone a massive dose of an anticoagulant drug like warfarin and they will die from the same thing that kills the rat!

 

That is the inherent flaw in the analogy. Warfarin is just an anticoagulant, and taking excessive amounts of it will kill a rat or a human in the same way: by making them bleed to death.

 

So its really not like warfarin is somehow bad for rats and good for humans at all. The dosage in relation to body weight is what makes it a rat poison or a human medication. Its got the same effect on both species.

 

The same is true for the blue light thing. So no, you wont find some magical wavelength of light that damages rat eyes but is fine for humans really. Some species have additional structures in the eye that could block most blue light. Some birds have yellowish carotenoid rich oil droplets in front of their retinal pigment epithelium, which filters blue light and increases their distance visual acuity. If humans had those(mammals dont) then perhaps it would be a different story. 

 

The fact that warfarin has the same effect through the same basic mechanism in rats as it does in humans reinforces what i was saying if anything. I hope you guys realized this whole time that warfarin kills rats by being a powerful anticoagulant, which is exactly what it is in humans as well, and that its the dosage that makes the poison... 

tell yourself as many times as you want that I was talking about light, but I wasn't, I was talking about the futility of people to argue with all the fervor you are about things they don't understand (that being my post even after I explained it).   You seem to be providing a good example to my points again.  Lots of arguments and explanations trying to convince me something.  Too bad this debate is all in your head as I have not made any of the claims you think I have. 

[mynameisjuan]

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

That is the inherent flaw in the analogy. Warfarin is just an anticoagulant, and taking excessive amounts of it will kill a rat or a human in the same way: by making them bleed to death.

How did this thread get to a drug causing animals bleeding to death?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

How did this thread get to a drug causing animals bleeding to death?

I made the mistake of using it as an example of people misusing rat studies to argue something they don't understand. 

[brownninja97]

Im not about to complain about anything that will increase my battery, reduce the stain on eyes after worryingly long sessions of whatever im doing and just be dark which in general is nice 

[Amazonsucks]

4 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

How did this thread get to a drug causing animals bleeding to death?

Because @M.Yurizaki mentioned that a study regarding rhodopsin mediated photoreversal(searing retinaas) was done on rats, ergo rhodopsin mediated photorrversal might not happen in humans since humans are not rats.

 

So then @mr moose replied as he indicated here:

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I made the mistake of using it as an example of people misusing rat studies to argue something they don't understand. 

To which i pointed out the fact that warfarin acts on rats exactly the same way it acts in humans so its not a good example.

 

I even offered a better example to help him make his point: theobromine in chocolate. Kills a lot of animals but is fine for people.

 

But nah there isnt some magical wavelength of light thats fine for humans but blinds rats or something, and the damage from blue light is well understood. Despite this, people still argue about it being a thing.

 

It feels kinda like arguing with flat Earthers at this point. I clearly explained the biological processes, but no matter what they will have some doubt.

 

Then they'll accuse other people of misconstruing rat models by actually misrepresenting drug effects to muddy the waters. Its pretty crazy but whatever. You know, the old "accuse someone else of doing what you ACTUALLY do" approach. Like i was also accused of butting into a conversation when it was actually the other guy...

 

Id be more than happy for any of them to buy a huge array of blue LEDs and sit in a room with that as their sole source of illumination. Then we wouldnt be reliant on animal testing.

 

@TopHatProductions115  It literally says "SEARING RETINAS" and "SAVES YOUR EYES" in the thread TITLE. Are you serious with your backseat moderation?

 

And i use dark mode and more importantly WARM MODE on everything to reduce retina searing blue light.

 

The exception to this rule is my 2007 Sony Bravias with WCG-CCFL backlights. Back then TVs had good backlights with more accurate white points compared to the vast majority of shitty WLED backlit TVs and monitors today, so those old TVs stay on neutral color temp.

 

[Nowak]

14 hours ago, Canada EH said:

What "study" did Google pay for for this PR gig?

Stating the obvious is a PR gig?

If you have a phone with an OLED display then black themes do save battery power, because a black pixel on an OLED panel is a part of the screen that's physically turned off. OLED panels have each individual pixel backlit, so white themes = more power draw, because more pixels are on while dark themes = less power draw, because less pixels are on.

[mynameisjuan]

52 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

But nah there isnt some magical wavelength of light thats fine for humans but blinds rats or something, and the damage from blue light is well understood. Despite this, people still argue about it being a thing.

I guess I dont know why rats came into this picture. 

 

All the studies on blue light on eyes are from humans and the effects are known in conditions cause by blue light. Also to note is this process takes a long time before the effect of blue light begin to show, I mean 10s of years, longer than any animal testing will last. 

 

Hell I know its destructive yet set all my devices to a cool temp because its more appealing to me knowing well in the future my eyes will be fucked. 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

I guess I dont know why rats came into this picture. 

 

All the studies on blue light on eyes are from humans and the effects are known in conditions cause by blue light. Also to note is this process takes a long time before the effect of blue light begin to show, I mean 10s of years, longer than any animal testing will last. 

 

Hell I know its destructive yet set all my devices to a cool temp because its more appealing to me knowing well in the future my eyes will be fucked. 

A lot of people have gotten used to bluish white points as a result of a combination of cool artificial lighting and bluish LCDs. Both are bluish because cool white LEDs are cheaper and brighter than warm LEDs. White LED is actually a pure blue LED with a Stokes Shift yellow phosphor coating. A thinner coating means a higher lumen per Watt rating and a "brighter more efficient"(though not better) light.

 

Colour constancy is pretty powerful. Im used to incandescent lights on dimmer switches, so anything on cool mode is quite horrible to me.

 

Humans evolved without strong blue light sources. The only meaningful source of blue light is the sky, but overall sunlight's CCT is 5500K when direct and effectively 6500K when overcast. The default white point for most content viewed is 6500K(D65).

 

In places where there is more blue light, like places with constant snow, ice, or at sea, humans relied and still rely on technology to block scattered blue light, and its no secret that people who live or work in such places historically suffered more eye problems as well(snowblindness and cataracts from life at sea for example).

 

Some animals have evolved to cope with the bluish reflected glare as i mentioned earlier, with such adaptations as coloured oil droplets in front of the individual retinal photoreceptor cells. Sea birds often have these to increase their distance vision by allowing wavelengths that dont scatter as much(red orange and yellow) and blocking shorter wavelengths, which are more affected by Rayleigh Scattering.

 

 

[Canada EH]

4 hours ago, Nowak said:

PR gig

Its PR totally PR

There used to be a band called The Spin Doctors, I still listen to their one hit.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Canada EH said:

Its PR totally PR

There used to be a band called The Spin Doctors, I still listen to their one hit.

It's

 

how OLED panels

 

work. I already explained this to you.

[Canada EH]

10 minutes ago, Nowak said:

It's

 

how OLED panels

 

work. I already explained this to you.

 

True, but Google wants PR, that is how businesses work. I do like OLED.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Canada EH said:

 

True, but Google wants PR, that is how businesses work. I do like OLED.

By that statement, every feature ever is PR. 

[Amazonsucks]

17 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

By that statement, every feature ever is PR. 

And at least this is a beneficial feature. I also love the fact that Android has the blue light filter feature. 

 

Idc if they did it as a meme. Its great and it works.

[_StrangerUnknown_1209]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:04 AM, D13H4RD said:

I miss the Windows Phone UX

I've been a Windows phone user for more than 4 years(I used Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows 10 Mobile) and I really liked the black theme. And when I switched back to android recently (an android one device), I was greeted with a white and bright theme, which was inconvenient for me... I really miss the Windows Phone UI...(I even went as far as to install Launcher8 Pro on my android device to satisfy my self but after all, its just a launcher and it too has its limitations...

 

Link to launcher8Pro in Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lx.launcher8pro2

Link to the free version in Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lx.launcher8

 

[suicidalfranco]

5 hours ago, _StrangerUnknown_1209 said:

I've been a Windows phone user for more than 4 years(I used Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows 10 Mobile) and I really liked the black theme. And when I switched back to android recently (an android one device), I was greeted with a white and bright theme, which was inconvenient for me... I really miss the Windows Phone UI...(I even went as far as to install Launcher8 Pro on my android device to satisfy my self but after all, its just a launcher and it too has its limitations...

 

Link to launcher8Pro in Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lx.launcher8pro2

Link to the free version in Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lx.launcher8

 

link to one plus

dark since the one