My comment was aimed both at the author and the "dark mode lobby" they are complaining about.
Seriously, it's your computer, just use whatever setup you prefer. If someone comments, make fun of them for caring about what you use on your machine.
Seriously, it's your computer, just use whatever setup you prefer. If someone comments, make fun of them for caring about what you use on your machine.
The problem is that many websites simply turn on dark mode without checking what my OS/browser is configured for. That is really annoying.
While I don't discount the possibility of their existence, I've yet to personally encounter an application or web site that only has a dark theme, so the "dark mode only" complaint rings like the perennial "War on Christmas" rant.
This is particularly hard now when many sites use images of program code in order to get syntactic highlighting, because your page rewriting extensions do nothing.
No, it isn't. The article is complaining about people who complain about the author's choice of light mode. Nowhere does it mention any site or application that only supports dark mode.
You mean like just about literally every website (except a few that got shit for being 90s-era design) that forced bright backgrounds on users for the better part of 15 years or so before "dark mode" became a thing?
I said that dark mode is not a neutral/inclusive choice, especially for people with astigmatism. If dark mode doesn't affect you, good for you, but the statement is factually correct.