Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtalantikite | Hacker News Reader

These LED light flickers actually trigger ocular migraines for me. I had tried to put in LEDs when the incandescent ban hit the US, and ended up with a Philips Hue system. I had 4 migraines in 3 days and had to send them back. I purchased as many incandescent bulbs as I could find, but they were somewhat impossible to find at that point.

I've got a couple bulbs from Waveform Lighting and they don't flicker, but I totally can tell the reds are off.

I really hate the LED transition. My building replaced all the outdoor lights with them, and now it's just too bright to sit on my stoop at night like used to be so common here in Brooklyn. My backyard neighbor put in an LED floodlight and now I have to buy blackout curtains. I drive rarely, but the oncoming headlights are blinding when I do. It's pretty depressing if I think about it too much.

View on HN

>My building replaced all the outdoor lights with them, and now it's just too bright to sit on my stoop at night like used to be so common here in Brooklyn.

What I miss are the old low-pressure sodium street lights that used to be ubiquitous in the UK. Not everyone's cup of tea but they were highly efficient (outperforming LEDs for a surprisingly long time) and had this cool property of being so monochromatic they ate the colours out of everything. This made them useful for astronomers because their light was easily filtered, and reduced their impact on wildlife relative to harsh blueish LEDs. The main reason I like them is aesthetic though, they made night look like night rather than a poor approximation of day.

Thankfully my local area have given up trying to use the really harsh white they put in initially, and have at least starting putting in warmer LEDs.

Sodium light story: my family went to Niagara Falls and took a tour of the tunnels behind the falls. The tunnels were lit by sodium lights that were not augmented by phosphors.

It was so monochromatic that we thought we lost our shuttle bus stickers that were stuck to our shirts, and would have to walk around instead of being able to hop-on/hop-off. What a relief it was to emerge in daylight.

> This made them useful for astronomers because their light was easily filtered

The wavelength is so specific that it can have all kinds of cool applications:

https://youtu.be/UQuIVsNzqDk?si=R4VUDCfC6zcHd4XC

I knew what this link was before I clicked it, and it's a must-watch for anyone who's interested in basically any aspect of film making, cinematography, or light science in general. Extremely cool topic.

I already know this is the Mary Poppins Corridor Crew video before clicking. Super cool video.

I did not know those things about the sodium lights, but I did think they were better than the LEDs which are too bright and have other problems. However, I think that they should not put so much light outside in the night time, anyways.

I have your problem. Philips makes no flicker LEDs, they don't have PWM like the Hue system, and good capacitors so no 60hz flicker. They're the "Ultra Definition Eye Comfort" models.

On older LEDs you could replace the caps, but newer ones use SMT caps that require more than just a soldering iron. It makes a huge difference, and also eliminates the slight delay when switching the lamp on (though I don't recall experiencing this with recent LED lamps, even cheap ones).

searched for images of "LED bulb teardown", the SMT components are not that tiny, so quite possible to solder with a regular iron. Am I missing something?

Really the worst part is that the bulbs are usually glued/ultrasonice welded, together, so you kind of have to destroy it to open it up.

You can cut them open with box cutters. You don't even have to glue them shut, just cut 270° and seal with electrical tape after. Ali Express has white electrical tape if you prefer.

>EyeComfort& LEDs have a high Colour Rendering Index, meaning that your home's furnishings appear in high definition and true colour.

What is this world coming to, that you have to buy some top-range lamps just to see the inside of your own home in true colour...

I really hate modern technology sometimes. I have nothing against being more energy efficient, running cooler, lasting longer, but we're losing some great things along the road.

I have to pay 3x the price for a CRI>90 LED w.r.t. a CRI>80 one. At least the price difference brings better light quality regardless of CRI (soft start, dimmability, even less flicker, better light distribution). On the other hand, I'm happy that I can get halogen bulbs if I really want to.

The problem comes from losing past frames of reference. We say "we're at 99% of benefit parity with the previous generation", but this 1% losses compensate every generation, and now we live in a more efficient, but arguably less comfortable life.

A couple of Technology Connections (this guy is nuts when it comes to LEDs, in a good way) videos on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSFNufruSKw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbvVnOxb1AI

I would rather buy a incandescent light (even if I have to pay 3x or 5x) which is not as bright as the LED (forty watts or possibly even lower, should be sufficient; I have a few 40W incandescent light and they are good enough), and then not turn it on in the day time when it is light outside.

(Unfortunately, other people where I live like to turn on the light even in the day time and that bothers me.)

You can buy an E27 halogen bulb around 50 watts (which would be around 100W incandescent) and pair it with a universal dimmer.

It'd provide you nice warm light, and will allow to flood the space with bright light if the need arises. Neither of them are expensive. Halogen bulbs are also CRI100, so their color rendering is not different from incandescent bulbs.

Turning on lights when you have ample sun is not a wise choice, I agree.

kinda, but you're also not buying a mini space heater.

Average lifespan of an incandescent bulb is about 1,000 hours. For a typical 60 watt bulb, that means it burns 60 kWh in electricity over the course of it's life. At $0.20/kWh, that means an incandescent is going to cost you $12 in electricity over its lifetime.

A Philips Ulta-Definition 4-pack of 60W-equivalent is $11.53 on amazon today, or $2.88 / bulb. That $3 bulb is actually 8W. So over those same 1,000 hours, that's 8 kWh, or $1.6 in electricity costs. So the $3 bulb saves you $10 in lifetime electricity costs vs. one incandescent.

But those bulbs are rated for 15,000 hours. Lets assume they all lie and deflate that by 1/3 (maybe a power surge will hit a few years in). That single $3 bulb still saves you 10 x $10 = $100 in electricity costs vs incandescents over its useful life. A bit more if you pay California electricity rates, a bit less if you live near some hydro co-op. But the difference is large enough that the effect is true no matter where you are.

So yeah, top-range lamps give better results than the cheapo stuff, but top range isn't that much more expensive, and the lifetime savings of going to LED are hard to ignore -- op-ex vs. cap-ex if you will.

> But those bulbs are rated for 15,000 hours

and they last 1000 hours. Technology has evolved. Also the methods to take your money.

You're suggesting that LED light bulbs need replacing every year, which hasn't been my experience (like, at all). I switched over to LED bulbs 10 or so years ago and haven't had to replace a single one yet.

I’ve got outdoor LED lights that fail constantly. So often that I keep dozens of them in storage to replace them as they die. Much less reliable than the incandescents they replaced. I’m fact, I have a string of about 50 sockets, about half are still incandescents that have survived for 10+ years, and the other half are LEDs that I have to keep replacing. Sadly, whenever an incandescent light goes, I have to replace it with the crappy LED version, so eventually it will be 100% crap.

Personally, I'd pay a lot more in electricity costs to have light that has full spectrum output. The Waveform lights I bought are about $40/bulb, and they're nicer than the Philips I tried, but they're still not as nice as a regular full spectrum incandescent.

But I also live in a small NYC apartment, so I don't have your typical suburban house with 20+ light fixtures to deal with, I only have 6.

Incandescent has other advantages. For example, in winter time if it is cold and it is also dark in winter time, then the heat can be beneficial. In summer time you should not need the light so much since there is already the light. Either way you should not need to use the light too often, and if you do not use the light too often then you can save energy by that too, and does not need to be replace as often.

Of course, that electricity could still better be used to power a heat pump. Or the money saved on electricity could be spent on insulation, or, more likely, used to buy natural gas / propane which is usually extremely cheap per unit of energy.

You don't and you probably don't want to. Daylight for true color. At nightime you want amber LEDs.

I have the same issues. I actually had to return an iPhone because the oled screens they use are so bad and gave me migraines.

For bulbs tho I found this site that tests tons of them for flicker.

https://flickeralliance.org/

It was a godsend and I was able to get some Ikea bulbs with zero flicker and they’ve been great. So at least my house isn’t a flickering mess. Now I just gotta figure out a phone that’s not garbage.

Does this also affect Macbooks?

In my testing no, the MacBooks are fine. It’s the phones that are a problem. Easiest way to tell is get a camera app you can set the shutter speed to 10,000 fps and point it at a screen. If there are black lines across the screen there is a PWM issue. The thicker and darker the black lines the worse it is.

10,000fps, or 1/10,000 of a second?

Asking because I don't have a Phantom at home.

The latter. But it’s the preview you’re looking at. You’re not actually taking a photo.

A camera app can't set a phone camera to 10,000 fps. So the question is what does it do?

Due to rolling shutter, you take a “progressive” photo. As a result, if the screen flickers during that time, you see this change in light intensity as horizontal bars.

Thicker bars means a lower PWM frequency, hence lower quality light/brightness control.

I think it varies by model. The 14" & 16" MacBook Pros with the miniLED give me and many others PWM issues. On the other hand, the MacBook Air models with the notch don't seem to bother most people.

I have an Air and agree these are great for people sensitive to PWM like myself.

Yes, the Air with the notch (M2, M3, M4) is specifically PWM free. There is some sort of display issue with the "OG" M1 Air screens for many.

Yes, some MacBook models are affected.

The MacBook Air displays with the notch do not have PWM and do not seem to bother people. The 14/16" Pro models seem to be quite bad for most people (I had to return my new 14" model, it was rough).

The first PWM MacBook I bought was the 16" MacBook Pro from 2019 (the last Intel model). I'd had a 2018 MBP 15" and couldn't figure out why I just couldn't stand looking at the new 16". I thought I had a bad display but ended up learning about PWM.

How did you survive office buildings, airports, department stores etc. prior to leds? I am by no means sensitive to flicker, but fluorescent tubes which were used in pretty much every office building/large department store, before leds became common, used to flicker like crazy in comparison. And there was always at least one which was broken and flickered on and off very slowly (including the characteristic sound).

Not well. But at least I had windows at work to counteract it and I could turn the lights off. I also was a contractor for 15 years which meant working from my home mostly.

Strangely tho there is something about PWM flicker, especially the kind that is deep cycle (basically 100% on then 100% off) that are super bad for me. I can look at an old CRT fine because it’s not completely on and off as it does it’s scanlines. But PWM is like flicking a light switch rapidly and it gives me the worst headaches.

Yes, exactly that, modulation depth. The screen goes completely dark, and our brains don't like it because: 1. It's stressful that something disappears abruptly. 2. It's stressful that it later appears a bit shifted in space.

Thanks for the link! I bought a moto g power 5G - 2024. It has an LED screen. I've been using this line of phone for years. It's morning fancy, but at least I can actually look at it.

If you are sensitive, I would recommend getting an Opple Light Master. It's a tiny and cheap flicker meter.

That sucks; I feel your pain. I, too, strongly dislike overly bright lighting.

I wonder if there's room to at least engage with the neighbor to talk about friendlier light options? You might also be able engage with these folks to see if there are efforts to improve the lighting in new York: https://darksky.org/

> I drive rarely, but the oncoming headlights are blinding when I do.

I drive a shallow car with old lights, and once I was blocked on a street by a much taller car sitting in front of me with very bright LED lights, and I couldn't see a thing because of the glare. I was unable to manoeuvre out the way because of this. They sat there for a minute or so stubbornly refusing to move for me before finally moving out the way.

It's super common where I live for teenagers who drive jacked up trucks to replace their headlights with super bright led lights. They don't adjust the angle of the beam, so they're just like brights all the time. It's miserable.

Also, more people seem to be driving with their bright lights on 100% of the time. I once rode as a passenger at night with an ex-coworker driving and I noticed he used his brights the whole time, even when there were oncoming cars. I asked him why and he looked at me like I was stupid and said “because they’re brighter and let me see better.” When I pointed out that they blind other drivers he just shrugged and said “fuck em, not my problem.”

My take is that PWM dimmers are dramatically more energy efficient than the old rheostat dimmers people used to use. If you operate a transistor in a digital mode where it is either on or off it is close to 100% efficient, but if you operate it in a 50% power mode you have to send 50% of the power to a load and the other 50% to a resistor. Thus CMOS logic eradicated bipolar, switching power supplies replaced linear power supplies, a Class D amplifier can be a fraction the size of a Class A amplifier, etc.

You could probably still reduce the flicker by either increasing the switching frequency or putting some kind of filter network between the switch and the load.

For sure, they're definitely way more efficient. They just unfortunately give me migraines. I'd be open to trying some that have a filter network or some other smoothing on the flicker.

But I've also never lived in a house that has dimmers (they've all been old homes in the north eastern US) and I never use overhead lighting, so it's not something I need or would miss.

Apparently fourth-generation LED tube lights are designed not to flicker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_tube#History

Aside from that Wikipedia article, where 1 source is not available and the other one is in Finnish, there's pretty much nothing online.

I googled for G4 LED tube PWM and got products that say they are G4 LED tubes that use PWM.

Pretty sure 100% of LED products sold anywhere use PWM if you don't use them at full brightness. I sometimes walk around lightning stores with a slo mo camera and see PWM in every price bracket.

It is always PWM under the hood, the question is, how much was spent (or not) on the filtering network out of the PWM. Is it closer to buck converter or is it straight up flicker at the output.

Since these things have lots of LEDs, my first thought was to put a range of different tiny delays on them to induce destructive interference, so that the off parts of one LED's flicker are the on parts of another, to smooth out the overall output.

Actually that's not true, my first thought was "just use a layer of phosphor excited by the LEDs", but fluorescent tubes do that and people used to make the same complaints about flicker, so.

Looks like "flicker index" is a useful(?) search term, anyway.

Have you ever tested various PWM frequencies? 50/60Hz is very noticable - but if the PWM is switching at 1000Hz? 5kHz? There is presumably a rate at which it is imperceptible to you?

Apparently Philips Hue uses 500-1000Hz. I wonder if there's manufacturers that use a much higher rate.

Beyond the Hz, the depth of the modulation matters. I am sensitive to poor PWM implementation, but Hue bulbs luckily don't bother me.

On an old iPhone with basic slow-mo recording capabilities, typical Hue bulbs don't "blink" when the video plays back, but the PWM-dimmed iPhone in the same video recording was blinking/flashing like crazy.

Another example of the PWM details mattering: I can't use any iPhone with OLED (anything from the X to current), but I am able to use a Note9 which has OLED with DC-style PWM.

What do you mean by “the depth of the modulation”? The relative brightness?

PWM at low duty cycles tends to be much more noticeable. But that’s where higher frequencies should solve the problem.

I was referring to the extent of brightness variation in the flicker -- while many focus on a higher frequency (Hz) to reduce eyestrain, the key factor is how the screen behaves during the off cycle

Some PWM implementations ramp the brightness up and down slightly (easier on eyes), while other manufacturers flip the switch on and off harshly (like strobing)

The shorter time the screen is dark between being lit up results in a a shorter pulse duration, and the pulse duration and depth are more important than the Hz

You can also eliminate flicker by not using PWM, and instead using a high switching frequency DC power supply with a clean stable output current.

Obviously it costs more, but I wish manufacturers would just do it.

Conceptually, that's not far away from PWM + filter, except maybe for the closed loop.

Yeah that's true, LEDs do need a closed loop for current regulation in a high efficiency setup, so might as well use it for dimming too.

Personally, I don't care for more energy efficiency if my head is hurting after 30 minutes under that light. I can really see all the flickering when I blink or move my head.

Similarly, I prefer a Class A amplifier if I have the space, but I won't open that can of worms here.

Old dimmers are triac based, with the potentiometer simply setting the trigger voltage, not doing the actual dimming. These were in fact very efficient.

Lights for high speed cameras use really good filtering on their PWM switching, or just linear power supplies. It would be nice to have a premium bulb that has longer life and much less flickering.

Philips' Eye Comfort series virtually have no flicker. I personally only use these series. They come in CRI>80 and CRI>90 variants. Latter one is also dimmable and comes with soft on/off.

They are nice.

Soraa brand bulbs are a tier above Philips if anyone is interested in premium lighting.

Unfortunately we don’t have them here. However, there are some good offerings from OSRAM.

I tried their healthy bulbs years ago and they were terrible. I've avoided the brand since then. I think they have done discontinued the healthy line.

The worst led bulbs I’ve ever seen were some overpriced name brand known for smart bulbs (probably philips). It physically hurt to be in the same room with them. My guess is that they forgot an IR or UV filter or something.

Hyperikon used to make great, somewhat cheap bulbs, but went under during the pandemic.

These days, I just get cheap 3000K, 90+CRI ones at the hardware store, and they’re fine.

Watch out for idiocy like “smart” bulbs though. For instance, they have ones that change color temp if you rapidly flip the light switch on and off and back on.

Also, make sure they are dimmer compatible. The ones that are not flicker badly (even at full brightness on our dimmers) and burn out after a few years.

> I totally can tell the reds are off.

How do the reds look to you?

I looked at the photometric reports from a couple Waveform models on their website and the R9 (saturated red rendering) was in the 90s for both with tint almost exactly on the blackbody line. The 2700K did have a bit worse R9 than the 4000K so I could imagine it doesn't look exactly like an incandescent.

I mean I hate to be like "vibes", but, kinda vibes. There's just something about the light coming out of the Waveform LED I have in one lamp in my living room versus the incandescent I have on the other side of the room. Definitely not a scientific take!

I did at one point randomly put the LED in different configurations when I first got it and my wife was able to pick out which lamp had the LED in it every time. They just have a different feel, even if the temperature rating is around the same as the incandescent and the R9 was the highest of the LEDs I evaluated. At least these Waveform LEDs don't give me migraines though.

"Vibes" are fair. I just put flashlights with two incandescent-like LEDs (Nichia 519A and Nichia B35A in 2700K) and I can see a slight difference in how they render colors even though the spectrophotometer says all the major metrics are within a couple points of each other.

What is the most logical explanation for the difference then?

Looking closely at the measurements, when the B35A has an advantage on individual CRI samples, it's usually a larger gap than when the 519A has an advantage. They're both in the 90s for R1-14, and it takes a keen eye to tell the difference.

I recently learned about Color Rendering Index, which sounds like pseudoscience but apparently it is not. Here's a handy table I used for buying lights; again domain sounds grifty but, it's a searchable table :shrug: [0].

[0]: https://optimizeyourbiology.com/smart-light-database

CRI is absolutely real. It's an old and relatively simplistic metric with several potential successors. The chart you linked uses one: TM30, which is based on the average of 99 different colors instead of CRI's 8.

There are seven extended samples for CRI (R9-R15) not included in the average. LEDs often do particularly poorly on R9, a measure of saturated red rendering. LED sources with high R9 usually advertise it separately.

Tint, or blackbody deviation (Duv) is also important to the look of light and listed on the chart, but not for every model. These numbers are very small, but important: anything outside of +/s 0.006 is not white light according to ANSI. +0.006 looks very green, and -0.006 looks very pink. Interestingly, after acclimating for a few minutes, most people think very pink looks better and more natural than neutral white[0]. Most people do not like green tint.

[0] https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/documen...

There is hope: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3341

That’s horrid. I can’t imagine going back to crappy incandescent bulbs today. We don’t need to import more disposable junk.

> disposable junk

On a long enough timeline, everything is disposable. And what is "disposal", really? How many LED bulbs are actually getting properly recycled, and isn't it true that the materials in incandescent bulbs are less harmful, relatively speaking, than those in LEDs?

I have never heard of anyone recycling an incandescent bulb, but recycling bulbs became a big deal with CFLs came out and most people seem to be in the habit in the area I'm in. Store have bulb take-backs for CFL/LED in the entryway, for example.

I don't like LED bulbs, but I think they clearly win the disposal/economical argument against incandescent in every way. Unfortunately they blink and have poor color reproduction in many versions.

I guess what I'm saying is, in the case that it's not recycled, are you better off with an incandescent in a landfill, or an LED in a landfill?

Then you might should reframe your question to the approximate # of incandescent bulbs a person would buy during the typical lifetime of an LED bulb. On the low end, it's 20.

Don't forget the costs & emissions related to manufacturing and transporting all twenty of those incandescent bulbs.

As much as I like the old bulbs, they're unlikely to "win" in this question unless you are wanting to ignore the major lifespan difference.

Economically speaking, one can go to Dollar Tree and spend $1.25 and get a two pack of LED bulbs that will save 38 other bulbs from the manufacturing stream and landfill. Seems obvious?

I think the environmental impact arguments are valid, but also it seems silly that they have us arguing about light bulbs when every single car on the road in the US is now some giant SUV and our built environment is actively hostile toward humans walking to go about their daily lives. Like, are the two incandescent bulbs in my Brooklyn living room the problem, or the giant suburban home eating meat 3x per day driving to Dollar Tree to buy junk?

As someone that has never owned a car, is vegetarian, and walks/subways everywhere, I kinda feel like what's the big deal if I use a few incandescent bulbs every year in my small NYC apartment?

To be clear, I have no issue with it, I'm just responding to you.

Incandescents can be bad in lots of categories but if they make you happy, that's a huge plus. Some categories are much more important than others.

I'm lazy and prefer not to change bulbs multiple times a year... but the warm light is lovely when I do use a classic bulb. I live in a warm environment and hate the heat they add, but in your climate perhaps it is nice much of the year.

It feels like there is increasing availability of LEDs with higher CRI (90+) and low/zero flicker then there used to be.

However, if you're like my parents, they buy lots of very cheap LED bulbs which fail quickly and flicker a lot, because since they fail so often, nice ones are too expensive.

I buy bulbs that cost a bit more up front but have less flicker (undetectable to me when waving a hand under them), higher CRI, and last longer.

Well, no one is forcing you to buy incandescents, but I certainly would be happy to buy them if they're available.

However, I think I'm probably out of luck -- LEDs are cheaper and they likely don't break as much in shipping. So even if I personally find LEDs to be worse than incandescents -- they don't render reds properly, so even something simple like skin tones don't have the depth they once did, plus they give me migraines -- I likely won't be finding them on shelves anywhere near me ever again.

Right there with you. I just dropped an amount of money I'm unwilling to admit on replacement bulbs throughout -- only this time I was replacing WiFi RGBW LED bulbs in rooms that had lower-end bulbs (almost everything on the market).

Incidentally, I went with LIFX -- I had purchased their bulbs back when they were the only realistic option besides Philips Hue for smart RGBW bulbs[0]. Still seems those two brands produce the most flicker-free variety.

[0] LIFX was a handful of lumens brighter at the time and didn't have a hub requirement

If you're savvy with manufacturing, make yourself a left handed edison thread (I can't find them anywhere). Left handed incandecent lightbulbs are still legal

Also, you can buy high wattage lights, and the three ways have lower wattage settings.

Finally, outdoor and appliance incandescents lamps are very inefficient, but last forever.

I wonder to the degree their effects are much worse than migraines. Perhaps irritability? Mental confusion? Anxiety? I'm spitballing here, but to be sure it seems like our world is somehow a place of more anxiety, irritation .... I would love for it to be something we could take control of.

i doubt it's the light bulbs. I posited the other day, by assembling a few different ideas, that Trauma Based Entertainment is to blame for this. something like 2/3rds of all Television programing is law-enforcement adjacent. True Crime is super popular on TV, law and order, NCIS, FBI this-and-that. And what's one of the largest advertising cohorts?

Medicine for depression, anxiety, insomnia...

it's nearly a closed loop; something i intuitively realized shortly after 2001/09/11 - by the end of that year i decided i would no longer have a "Television" attached to CATV/SAT/ANT service.

I'm not sure if i am correct, i haven't really dedicated a lot of time to getting the exact numbers, talking to psychologists and sociologists and the like. But two people i know had "breakdowns" (grippy sock) in the last month and both of them always have true crime on TV in the background or listen to true crime podcasts. Shortly after that happened i was listening to the moe facts podcast where Moe used the term "trauma based entertainment" and something clicked - Moe didn't mention "it's because of pharma ads" - that's my own input after having worked for the largest television "broadcast" company in the world, just long enough to see the advertiser "dinner".

The only ones watching traditional OTA TV anymore are elders. That advertising cohort is why OTA TV ads are filled with pharmaceuticals and "you may be entitled to financial compensation" type ads, at least where I'm at. Traditional TV has been dying since Youtube and broadband. MTV plays Ridiculousness constantly because no one is actually watching it.

> it's nearly a closed loop; something i intuitively realized shortly after 2001/09/11 - by the end of that year i decided i would no longer have a "Television" attached to CATV/SAT/ANT service.

Curiously this is about the same time I decided to give up on TV and radio as well.

Utter nonsense.

Verifiable data. Nielson data has to be paid for, but Australia's is free and open. [0]

Over 75 year olds are the largest FTA cohort.

[0] https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2024-12/report/communic...

... but the content on streaming services isn't much different.

I don't know the content breakdown of online videos, but i know that creators like audit the audit are in the algo; and that's trauma based entertainment as well. the "here's the story and police interview of so-and-so", plus the news stations that have youtube presence.

Movies are another one, and lots of people watch movies. If i go on hulu or netflix and start tallying the genres (either TBE or not-TBE), what do we figure it will be?

The person i heard use the phrase "Trauma Based Entertainment" used it to describe movies that "we were sat down to watch when we were 9-12." Unfortunately the podcast i mentioned isn't super-advanced on the backend so i am unsure how to share clips at this point. But i've heard before the claim "young women as a demographic listen to true crime" repeated as a truism. I know the women close to me listened to this sort of content in the past or currently. I'm not trying to generalize this to the entire cohort.

also i only think, myself, that it's harmful, TBE/true crime/etc; i'm not a sociologist or psychologist.

It's definitely long lost its crown as the main way to watch video, but linear TV does still have a role. Apparently there's still the odd broadcast in the UK that means the national grid has to work to keep the frequency stable when everyone goes to put their kettles on in the ad breaks.

Live sports. Latency is so much lower on OTA television that you can tell who is watching a football match on UHF, cable or multicast IPTV, satellite and through unicast internet.

People just don't pay attention to colour temperature. Warm LED lights should be more common in stead of those filthy blue LED's

I don’t heave the migraines, but everything else you described is spot on. Sitting outside at night is much less enjoyable due to neighborhood LED lighting. If I could, I’d shoot them all out.

You need high CRI lighting - that's the key to proper colors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com