3 ms·

I think your summary here more or less applies to the entire debate, and many other similar debates. When did we forget that personal preference an entirely suf

by taneq 4y ago

I think your summary here more or less applies to the entire debate, and many other similar debates. When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't use dark mode because a meta-analysis of opthalmological studies indicates it may improve eye health, I use it because I like it and my eyes feel more comfortable using it.

thayne 4y ago
This 100%. I've seen things extolling the virtues of light mode, and I try it out for a little while, and I just don't like it.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so. Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.
- swayvil 4y ago
  The independent thinker is an irrational addict. And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus. Is that how it is?
- antifa 4y ago
  > I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws. You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Personal choice, 41% battery reduction, and a distrust that any of the studies were on 8-12 hour reading sessions.
Stratoscope 4y ago
Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way. It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone. And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time. I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes. Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode. When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background. Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to. There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture. But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode. I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
theclansman 4y ago
I have many reasons to distrust a study like this anyway, just like a lot of medical studies trying to find causations in everyday activities. 1. If the results aren't controversial it probably wouldn't get published ("dark mode is good for your eyes" is a boring result) 2. They can discard results that contradict the thesis without having to make them public. 3. How many people do we need to trust the results of a study like this? Whatever the number you think of, they probably used less than that. When it comes to stuff like this, you can probably find studies stating the opposite anyway, it's not like there's a consensus on this stuff.

by taneq 4y ago

thayne 4y ago

This 100%. I've seen things extolling the virtues of light mode, and I try it out for a little while, and I just don't like it.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

> When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so. Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.

swayvil 4y ago
The independent thinker is an irrational addict. And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus. Is that how it is?
antifa 4y ago
> I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws. You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.

readthenotes1 4y ago

Personal choice, 41% battery reduction, and a distrust that any of the studies were on 8-12 hour reading sessions.

Stratoscope 4y ago

Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way. It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone. And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time. I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes. Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode. When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background. Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to. There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture. But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode. I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.

theclansman 4y ago

I have many reasons to distrust a study like this anyway, just like a lot of medical studies trying to find causations in everyday activities. 1. If the results aren't controversial it probably wouldn't get published ("dark mode is good for your eyes" is a boring result) 2. They can discard results that contradict the thesis without having to make them public. 3. How many people do we need to trust the results of a study like this? Whatever the number you think of, they probably used less than that. When it comes to stuff like this, you can probably find studies stating the opposite anyway, it's not like there's a consensus on this stuff.