> If the issue is the number of blue photons per square millimeter of our retinas, why isn't it being discussed as such? This means screen brightness and distan

> If the issue is the number of blue photons per square millimeter of our retinas, why isn't it being discussed as such? This means screen brightness and distance from your face would have a much bigger impact than a color filter. Although I'm no ophthalmologist, I think this is not likely. AFAIK there are retinal nonlinear cascading effects in the detection of light; if you double the distance, you should get 1/4 the incidental photons, but I think you will effectively perceive a less drastic change in reception than > 1/4 of the light, and so downstream a monotonic smaller difference in circadian rhythm disruption? > FWIW the only person I've known to use f.lux is an insomniac who barely ever sleeps and is always tired. They would be better off getting more sleep, but it seems like a distraction to say that because f.lux doesn't cause them to sleep, it's not effective. One could just as readily argue that the people who use it well are unlikely to praise their fine-tuned daily sleep hygiene, or that the insomniac's sleep would probably be worse without f.lux, or that they're a hypochondriac, or that f.lux causes insomnia, or any other similar speculative conclusion.. Why would the f.lux team be hiding any uniquely-possessed information for (experimentally) showing how they have duped their users??