Those glasses state that they are the only pair that “blocked 100% of harmful blue light in the 400-450 range”
But melanopsin contained in the cells that regulate circadian rhythms have an absorption spectrum extends to slightly beyond 540 nm (see the OP’s post). As the author says, “It’s not sensitive to blue, it’s sensitive to cyan (and blue and green).”
Those glasses probably do what they say in terms of wavelengths they filter, but they are only partially filtering out light relevant for circadian rhythm regulation and sleep.
This is great it works for you but hopefully you realize the weakness of anecdotal evidence when it comes to declaring something is universally effective.
Your n of 1 argument is the equivalent of “my grandpa smoked until he was 95 so smoking clearly can’t be bad for your health”.
I love redshift as well. I actually keep it 24x7, and my eyes don't get tired at all even after 12 hours of programming. Nowadays, turning off redshift feels like an attack on the eyes.
And no, reducing brightness on monitors doesn't have the same effect. I recently upgraded my monitors to 600nits brightness from 350nits and there has been no change in comfort level with redshift but without the redshift, the old monitors (and the new) stil feel very hostile to eyes.
You're right, it's not valid to make any broader conclusions from an anecdote. But it's about just as valid as the author making conclusions based solely on physical "this is what I should expect to happen" hypotheses.
More importantly, as an individual, the only thing that counts is when the n of 1 is you. As another commenter said, you don't need to live your life by studies. It's not like there is much expense or risk in trying a screen reddener, so try it out, and if it works for you, great - it's bizarre that the author thinks it is "aggravating" that a lot of people use things that they say work for them.
Did you read the article? He points out “It’s possible that Night Shift does something, but the biggest study I could find of Night Shift mode (still a pretty small study) found little effect on sleep, so if there’s an effect, it must be tiny.” He links the exact type of observational study you asked for
Regardless the maximum possible effect will be constrained by the biology of the cells responsible for responding to blue light. Maybe knowledge of the biology is incomplete or flawed but to not use it to inform what’s possible seems foolish.
So what if it’s a placebo effect? Well some people are spending money and time investing in blue light filtering glasses and other solutions. It’s potentially snake oil and it could keep them from pursuing better solutions that would actually help them sleep
If the author goes "I couldn't find enough high quality studies on the topic I'm discussing", then the conclusion should be that we need more studies, not to come to unwarranted conclusions in the absence of actual data.
> Well some people are spending money and time investing in blue light filtering glasses and other solutions.
Ironically, we actually do have a number of good studies on the effects of blue light filtering glasses (easily findable with a Google search) and they do demonstrably reduce onset of sleep time. Where more research is needed is on software-only filters for screens.
If that's the case, I want to see studies on how blue light filtering glasses fare versus just regular-ass sunglasses (of equivalent tint). Is it the reduction of blue light that helps people, or is it just the reduction of light, full stop?
Just the latter on its own is quite thoroughly proven to help people sleep, and helps with migraines, and so on.
Or what about UV light? I've never seen anyone say that an anti-UV coating/lens material in glasses helps with sleep (nor that it doesn't). But UV is still high frequency light that enters our eyes, even higher frequency than blue light, and there's at least some research to suggest it might affect human circadian rhythms despite its invisibility to us. But I've never seen anyone suggest that wearing your regular glasses (because most regular glasses these days are UV-blocking) before bed, or before a nap during the day (or before trying to sleep through the day, for a night shift worker), could help someone get to sleep.
I'd imagine it could also depend on exactly how much blue light is filtered; it's not like all blue light filtering glasses are tinted to the same degree. Glasses that all but make the world look like a reptile house might do a lot more than glasses that have only the faintest of orange tints. It's not like lenses either block blue light fully or don't block it at all; there's a spectrum here. How much blue light is supposed to get blocked for it to matter?
Were the studies that showed blue light blocking glasses to improve sleep done with lenses so tinted they were essentially sunglasses, or did they use nearly clear/only slightly tinted lenses akin to the blue light blocking lenses that are marketed as alternatives to regular clear lenses?
How did you get to equity packages being “routinely” worth millions when tech startups fail somewhere between 75% and >99% of the time (depending on estimates)?
Seems far more likely that startup equity will be worth zero to typical individual contributor employees, not millions
Case in point: 2 years ago i interviewed at a number of places with mind boggling valuations and most of the places I got offers from either no longer exist or laid off half their staff. It’s a lottery
By your own measure, if startups fail 99% of the time, shouldn't one value a $1M equity as $10k bonus? "Zero" does seem extreme, agree with the sentiment that "it's less than you think" but if you get lot of equity in a series-C startup, I wouldn't say that's equivalent to 0.
Probably not, because even in the 1% when the startup succeeds, there is probably some gotcha. It will turn out that your share was diluted, or your shares are not priority shares unlike the shares that your boss owns, etc... unless you are an expert, you have no idea about the dozen ways you can be screwed even in the unlikely case that the startup succeeds.
> just that it isn’t uncommon for options to be worth a lot.
You're deluding yourself here. On average, the vast, vast majority of equity options, _especially_ in the VC backed tech world, turn out to nothing for the employee.
You literally built a tool because there's so many variables, and in the majority of cases, all these variables do not align in a way that results in a payment.
This is almost the literal definition of "uncommon". It is uncommon for options to materialise into a large amount of value for employees.
I respect your tool, and I respect what you're doing. But you need to be honest with yourself and the rest of the world. If you want to help young or new people in this area, then don't perpetuate the myth that startup tech company options are statistically any better than a lottery ticket.
A piercing that takes months to heal and has its own potential side effects (infection for one) does not seem worth weeks of relief after which pain returns. The authors of this study therefore do not recommend this piercing for migraines despite the transitory benefits
“current evidence does not support daith piercing for the treatment of migraine, tension-type headaches, or other headache disorders.”
Team cohesion is important as far as being able to work collaboratively to finish a project, but it’s not clear that requires being in an office every day for 8+ hrs
I find that its easy to look back on memories and wish to go back. One day it clicked that I may look back on today and think the same thing. For me, the key is to try and be happy today, try not to look backwards and long for the impossible idea of revisiting those times, and try not to fear the future.
I'm not terribly familiar with Google Voice (it also isn't available in my country...), but they look similar in terms of functionality at this point in time. For me personally, the primary reasons to go with Relay would be that I'm already trying to move away from Google as much as possible for privacy reasons, that I'm already using Relay for email masking, and that Relay is explicitly focused on the privacy use case and will keep evolving in that direction.
I can relate to the privacy-focused goal of getting away from google however Google Voice is free. Sadly I think having a competing free Google product that accomplishes most of the same things is going to hurt adoption of the Firefox relay product (which is paid)
But melanopsin contained in the cells that regulate circadian rhythms have an absorption spectrum extends to slightly beyond 540 nm (see the OP’s post). As the author says, “It’s not sensitive to blue, it’s sensitive to cyan (and blue and green).”
Those glasses probably do what they say in terms of wavelengths they filter, but they are only partially filtering out light relevant for circadian rhythm regulation and sleep.