You must log in or register to comment.
Anything sold by Gwyneth Paltrow in her online shop, which I will not name here so as not to promote it. In the best case, goods sold there will be harmless and entirely useless. In the worst case, they will cause serious harm.
Cleanses. You don’t need a cleanse if you have a liver and kidneys, and if you don’t you need dialysis.
Homeopathic remedies
At least you’ll never have to worry about overdosing on it.
Homeopathy as a whole. It’s just modern hippies.
Chiropractic anything. John Oliver covered it quite well.
What episode was that?
Anything sold as a “detox”
Crypto. Most LLM based AI. 80-90 percent of the startup world after 2009.
Anything related to toxins or detox. Keto and Carnivore diets.
Most online college programs.
Those vibram finger shoes and barefoot running. Most gym memberships; honestly half of the gym bros need to diet more than they need to slam weights and HIIT
Probably ozempic, since people going off it immediately balloon back up
I’ve wondered for a long time what the long term impacts of aggressive teeth bleaching are on enamel, too, but not sure if I’d call that snake oil; it works entirely as intended
Majority of the “AI inside” software and solutions. It’s in a bubble and everyone is throwing crap to a wall hoping it sticks.
“AI” is the new “blockchain”. It’s a solution looking for a solid problem to tackle, with some niche applications
I mean, at least Ai has SOME useful applications, the blockchain was just wasting energy for some numbers.
Blockchain also has some useful applications. Most (but not all) of them are also possible with technology and such that existed when bitcoin was first created, at far lower cost for a minor tradeoff in accuracy. On top of that, almost none of them are related to speculative markets.
It’s a way to do distributed transaction logs in a non-refutable and independantly verifiable way. That’s useful and important, but it was a solution in search of a problem. Even for the highest security, most at risk transactions, the existing international fincancial systems are “good enough” to ensure reliability of transaction logs.
In the end, blockchain and now AI are just falling victim to con men trying to milk as much money as they can from things before people build a working understanding of them. They’ll just keep moving onto the next big thing as it comes.
useful and important
solution in search of a problem
Mhhh
I just wish people had long enough memories to see the cycle for terms like these. Some new word catches vogue, companies fall over themselves trying to find ways to implement them for shareholders and consumers who have no idea what they actually represent. As that fades, a new term arises… it’s sad.
And virtual reality gets a free revival every other technology, while we’re at it.
I’m predicting VR coming back into the limelight, try again, shortly after everyone loses interest in AI.
Also, I’m still pissed that flying cars aren’t in the limelight more. I was promised daily updates, and I’m not seeing them. That’s the biggest proof that the media is completely disconnected.
We have flying cars. They’re called helicopters, and they suck for most activities
Good point.
I’m willing to accept a reality where the science magazines are constantly excited about every development in helicopter technology.
Blockchain also has problems its solving I recon the whole not bullshit was a psyop by thr us government cos finances that they couldn’t have absolute control over would allow the people to bs free. I recon monero is the best as of present especially since its actually anonymous payments.
I am so over hearing about AI. It’s getting to the point that I can assume anyone dropping the term at work is an idiot that hasn’t actually used or utilised it.
It’s this LLM phase. It’s super cool and a big jump in AI, but it’s honestly not that good. It’s a handy tool and one you need to heavily scrutinise beyond basic tasks. Businesses that jumped on it are now seeing the negative effects of thinking it was magic from the future that does everything. The truth is, it’s stupid and people need to learn about it, understand it, and be trained in how to use it before it can be effective. It is a tool, not a solution—at least for now anyways.
The truth is, it’s stupid and people need to learn about it, understand it, and be trained in how to use it before it can be effective.
So, like a hammer. A very expensive, environment-destroying hammer.
That’s actually a pretty good analogy.
I think more like discovering making fire or something. 90% of all the energy burnt is people worshipping it as it blazes away, never actually fulfilling any practical use except being marvelous to be around.
But once the forest is all chopped down, people are forced to understand fire and realise a couple small logs in a contained place was all they needed to have it be incredibly effective.
Oh, but that’s too hard. It’s magic right now. All hail the AI bonfire!
Genuinely curious, how does it destroy the environment?
Massive energy consumption. Huge datacenters and not enough green energy. Now they want to build small nuclear plants. Without talking about the waste problem.
Their waste is less destructive than coal plant though. Perhaps this could be a silver lining to finally get nuclear back in action and get closer to dropping coal once and for all.
So AI uses energy, and it’s how we are choosing to provide that energy is destructive to the environment? So AI isn’t itself destructive.
Ah yeah, just choose a different energy souce. Simples.
Have you seen the growth in % of renewable (incl, nuc biofuel and waste) electricity generation over the past 30 years. (36% i in 1990 , dropped to about 33% in late 2000s up to 38% recently) this is global, IEA figures.
There have been two years since 1990 when renewable electricity output has grown faster than total electricity demand. 2008/9 recession and 2020 covid. The only way renewables will come close to meeting current electricity consumption is actually to start reducing those demands.
If we start transerffing gas( domestic heating), and petrol( low-capacity road transportation) onto the electricitry grid then the scale and speed of renewables needs to ramp up inconcievably quickly - it has grown fast over the past decade, but it hasn’t been cheap nor has it been fast enough to keep up with current demands.
TBH I don’t know where AI lines up next to EVs in scale of potential extra demand, probably lower but still an added demand (unless it can substitute for other stuff and improve efficiency somehow).
Electricity source is not really a choice, it is resource and tech constrained many sources are needed; the cheapest fuels will continue to be in the mix used so long as demand keeps increasing so fast.
Maybe, If you ran all AI in peooles houses in cold countries in winter, it’d substitute for heating - that’d be one way it could reduce its impact. Or maybe it can get its act together and spark widespread, frequent, deep, long lasting recessions in economic activity.
Maybe renewables is not the solution to our energy needs if it can’t scale up like we thought it could. Conservation of energy is not the answer. We as a society must find new, cleaner, sources of energy. Maybe AI can help us do it.
I equate an AI to an intern. It’s useful for some stuff but if I’m going to attach my name to it I’m going to review it and probably change a lot about it.
There’s one good use case for me: produce a bigload of trialcontent in no time for load testing new stuff. “Make 2000 yada yada with column x and z …”. Keeps testing fun and varied while lots of testdata and that it’s all nonsense doesn’t matter.
I’ve found that testing code or formulas with LLM is a 50/50 now. Very often replying “use function blabla() and such snd so” very detailed instructions while this suggested function just doesn’t exist at all in certain language asked for… it’s still something I’ld try if I’m very stuck tho, never know.
Very often replying “use function blabla() and such snd so” very detailed instructions while this suggested function just doesn’t exist at all in certain language asked fo
I’ve noticed this a lot too—especially for M. But even though it makes up a function, it sometimes inspires a more optimised idea/method that can be more flexible for future datasets.
But most times it starts to massacre things and disregard prompted parameters or even producing an identical suggestion immediately after being told not to, why not to, and reconfirming original parameters of the query.
Some times punching in the same prompts five times for five iterations produces completely different results, but one may be on the right track and I can code the rest. It helps to set it’s personality first, so it’s sharing ideas it’s seen out there, rather than trying to please.
At the least, it’s a big time saver. Gone are the days where I get a few days spare to work on solving a complex problem through trial and discovery, so it’s an excellent tool for reducing testing time and speeding up the route to an optimised method.
I just got a notification on my phone telling me that I can chat with my PDF documents. Why the fuck would I want to do that? Do these companies realize that literally no one is asking for this shit? I also saw an ad for a computer mouse that had AI inside it. Whatever that means.
Oddly enough, that’s one of the few functions I’ve found the LLMs useful for. Looking through big pdfs for specific information, lots of times “ctrl+f” doesn’t do the trick because the exact term I’m looking for doesn’t appear. Worse sometimes it’s a phrase that could be in there under many synonyms. Using the LLM to find the actual info is pretty nice, it just isn’t “AI”.
Don’t knock it too quickly. I thought like you but one evening I was a little tipsy and started chatting with a PDF document. Let’s just say things got a heated and now we’re engaged.
I just got a notification on my phone telling me that I can chat with my PDF documents
I belive you got that notification but I honestly have no idea what it even means.
It’s from the Adobe Acrobat app. Basically you can ask it to give you a summary of whatever document you’re reading.
notice how all of those crypto features were quietly removed from platforms after people realised they were paying millions for some numbers, i think that will happen with Ai
Watched a bit of a video of a guy that went to Computex and asked any vendor with AI plastered somewhere what they were doing with it. Most spouted some meaningless word salad and a few literally shrugged.
I can’t wait to get a Smart AI refrigerator that tells me I have a bunch of food that isn’t really in there even when I didn’t ask it to.
My research was literally on AI back in college. Most AI solutions are just basic algorithms and don’t use real AI solutions. There’s a huge difference.
It’s even better than that. A lot of companies are taking NVIDIA’s pre-built workflows, running their data through them and selling the results as their own AI. “We build proprietary RAG AI!”
AI
Middle managers
“Enterprise solutions”
Student loans
AI, particularly in how the likes of microsoft are marketing it to businesses.
ML/LLMs applied sensibly is definitely not snake oil.
Peddling ML/LLMs as AI and saying it will be the biggest paradigm shift ever seen is definitely snake oil and a lot of people just looking to capitalise on the latest fad, just like blockchain, “Big Data” or the metaverse.
Tech companies were struggling to raise funds in the bearish market that followed the pandemic tech boom. They were desperately looking for something big and shiny to use to persuade investors into loosening their wallets, and they’ve struck gold with “AI” because it sounds so cool and it can “basically do anything”, including replacing loads of staff with bots. Investors are being very easily bamboozled by this. Of course FOMO plays a big role here too.
I think “AI” is close to its peak of inflated expectations on the Gartner hype cycle curve below and it will take a while for people to wake up to the realisation that the “Bright AI-fuelled Future” they had been sold is nothing more than a thin wrapper around a ChatGPT API with a pretty bow on top.
Essential oils. Homeopathy. Chiropractic. Reiki. Juice cleanses. Perineum sunning. Internet accelerator software. Iridology. Faith healing. Organic food. Oil pulling. Gold plated digital audio cables.
It’s worth noting that gold plated connectors are not snake oil. Gold is a good conductor and doesn’t form a nonconductive oxide layer. That means it’s going to be more durable and won’t corrode together or apart like those old ass sheet metal tube sockets that all need to be cleaned.
deleted by creator
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
I absolutely did. Thanks for that.
deleted by creator
Perineum sunning
I’m sorry WHAT
I’ve not heard of this but I assume it’s irradiating your taint/barse/grundle with sunlight. Although for what purpose is beyond me.
Edit: Wikipedia link
Isn’t showing the sun your grundle purpose enough?
Fair enough.
How do you bundle up organic food with the rest of that ?
At best, organic food offers the same nutritional value as non organic food. At worst, it’s less nutritious and more expensive.
meh. nutritional value is about the same, yeah, but that’s not the point of organic food. people who claim that eating an all organic diet makes you better are yahoos.
The point of organic farming is that it is just all-around better for the planet, the soil, the organisms therein and less polluting.
The only real issue I see with organic food is that it excludes GMOs
GMOs are an issue for nations’ food sovereignty, but organic food modt importantly means no phytosanitary products (such as the infamous roundup), which persist in the plants and cause all sorts of cancers
There is not conclusive evidence that organic food is better for the environment. Obviously there are facets of the environment impact that will be better than conventional agriculture, but there is a ~19% reduction in yield, and lower soil carbon in organic agriculture. A reduction in yield means more land must be cleared for agriculture, so the other facets of organic ag would need a to be substantially better than conventional to make up for it.
I disagree. Just following your source to its conclusion, I think it’s safe to say OA (organic agriculture) is better all around:
7.1 Pros • Lower emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH4 • Enhanced soil and water quality • Lower energy use per land area • Higher energy efficiency per land area 7.2 Cons • Lower soil profile SOC stocks [i.e. how much carbon is in the soil] • Lower crop yields • Higher land requirement • Lower energy production per land area
Your conclusion that we’d have to clear more land for agriculture use if we all switched to OA seems flawed; e.g. here in Germany we use about 60% of agricultural land to raise livestock feed like corn etc (https://www.landwirtschaft.de/tier-und-pflanze/pflanze/was-waechst-auf-deutschlands-feldern). Seems to me like eating less meat and growing idk lentils or beans would not immediately lead to food insecurity.
This is also what the FAO says: yes, OA leads to yield reduction when compared to conventional methods, but not to food scarcity and instead to healthier ecosystems (https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/).
(sry gotta go, more.later)
Yeah, I definitely agree we’d be better off cutting land used for livestock. I guess it’s a slightly different story in Germany because any land you’re using for livestock (or livestock feed) is presumably land that could be used for human food. In America, much of the land used for cattle is ranch land not suitable for agriculture. We do still have massive amounts of land cultivating crops like corn and hay for cattle that is suitable for agriculture, though.
Just going down that pro and con list, though, it really does seem unclear to me. OA releases less CO2, but it also stores less CO2 in the soil. Lower energy use/higher efficiency per land area is great, but what we really want is lowest energy use per X amount of food. The “enhanced soil and water quality” part is also debatable. this study shows a higher eutrophication potential from OA, so worse for water. It does seem to be dependent on the crop, and the impacts of beef are so insanely higher than plants, that it almost seems irrelevant how you farm crops.
It’s somewhat like saying that a suburban block is better for the environment than a city block. It’s true, but only if you consider just that plot of land. A city block is way more efficient in terms of per person effect on the environment.
I think the crux of the problem is that the original tenets of organic agriculture were set by some scientists a hundred years ago, but also people like Rudolph steiner who was an occultist. There’s still a mix of actual science and hippy pseudoscience mixed in to this day. For example, the focus on only “natural” pesticides means using compounds that have higher runoff, persistence in the soil, and broader impacts to insect life. I wish that there was more flexibility for OA standards to change to the best evidence that we have.
Organic food is devinetively not snake oil. As you mentioned,Nutrition wise its exactly the same. However, the Environmental Impact is completely different. Organic farming is much better in terms of biodiversity, soil health. Since organic farming doesn’t include the use of pesticides it doesn’t kills everything else that would live on a field. Also, Theres always parts of the pesticides that stay in the crops and that you eat. I don’t know exactly how bad they are, but considering that(at least in Germany) Parkinson is an accepted work related illness for farmers its sure that they aren’t entirely safe for humans. However, we should take into consideration, that farmers get exposed to much higher doses of pesticides. If someone has some articles regarding this topic feel free to share.
This is going to be different country to country, but organic farming can still use pesticides. I posted a link below as well, but organic farming is also not conclusively better for the environment. It has lower yields, and therefore requires more land. You have to balance the effects of converting more land into organic farmland versus the benefit of, for example, less fertilizer runoff.
At the end of the day, “organic” is a marketing term, not a statement of health or ecological benefit. Most complaints about conventional agriculture (and GMOs) are actually complaints about industrialized agriculture as a whole.
I wish there was a good, regulated term for food that was produced with the best known processes (and perhaps there is for specific foods), but “organic” is not it.
I personally think, that the loss in efficiency is worth it, if you don’t have to use pesticides. This also becomes less relevant, when you take into consideration, that we have to move away from eating that much meat(which needs more land), so we have the land to compensate this loss in efficiency.
Everything marketed audiophiles, not only gold plated cables, but also anything that uses vacuum tubes because “they sound better”
There’s a LOT of snake oil in the audio world. Especially home theater and home studio setups. I’m a professional audio technician, and some of the “audiophile” setups I have seen are just outright asinine.
Use balanced signal for runs over ~3 feet. Use the cheapest star-quad cable you can get, and the most basic $4 Neutrik connectors. Why? Because that album you’re using to test your “hi-fi” sound system was recorded using exactly that: Cheap ¢30/foot cable and basic Neutrik connectors.
It’s also what concert setups use. You think a concert with six combined miles of cabling is going to be paying $2000 per cable? Fuck no, they’re using the cheap shit (which was hand soldered in bulk at the warehouse workbench by their lowest paid shop tech), to run that million dollar audio system. Their money goes to the speakers, amps, and mixer; Not gold plated wire, robotic soldering, or triple insulated jackets. In double-blind tests, audiophiles can’t hear the difference between a $500 cable and a couple of plasti-dipped coat hangers twisted together.
The people who complain about digital audio also can’t tell the difference in double-blind tests. Because modern audio hardware is able to perfectly emulate old analog gear. Google the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem for a breakdown of how we can perfectly capture and recreate analog audio with digital equipment. Vacuum tubes were groundbreaking when they were first used. But they had a lot of issues, and have very little relevance in today’s systems. They’re prone to burning out, notoriously fragile, and can be emulated perfectly.
The Norquist-Shannon rate sampling theorem only asserts that for a given maximum frequency, you only need another other given maximum frequency of sampling to represent it.
It does not say you can “perfectly” reproduce a signal. Only that you can reproduce all fourier components of the signal that are below half your sampling rate in frequency. It perfectly does that, yes.
But the signals that only contain a finite number of frequencies all below a certain maximum frequency are abstractions used in signal theory classes for teaching that theorem, and in engineering to hit a “good enough” target, not a “perfect” target.
Any frequencies bouncing around the room at over 22 kHz are lost at least to something using the 44 kHz sampling format.
TL;DR: Norquist-Shannon lets you completely reproduce signals with finite information in them. But real life sound doesn’t have finite information in it.
It’s Nyquist–Shannon. Norquist is taxes.
Also frequencies greater than half the sampling rate aren’t lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out.
But if you think it’s easiser to capture those room acoustics with analog equipment the non linear amplification and distortion of any analog system is going to change the sound just add much if not more then a good digital system.
So yeah both lose or distort the signal but digital does it in avery predictable way that can be accounted for and it does have a frequency region that it captures precisely. Analog doesn’t.
Nyquist, thank you.
aren’t lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out
If by “fold into” you mean they add noise to and hence distort the readings on the lower frequencies, that’s correct. But that just takes it further from a perfect reproduction.
Frequency folding is the term used in DSP no need for quotes. The Nyquist frequency is commonly referred to as the folding frequency.
And yes frequencies above the Nyquist folding frequency alias into lower frequencies. A simple low pass filter prevents this however.
Properly filtered digital sampling produced a more accurate reproduction of the frequency range with less distortion then an analog signal.
I don’t disagree that there’s noise in analog signals too, limiting their information capacity. But that’s coming from the limitations of our physical implementations’ quality, no?
Also I used quotes to refer to your words, not to throw shade at a term’s validity. I use quote marks to quote.
If by “x” you mean …
Doesn’t mean the same thing as just randomly surrounding it with quotes in normal use means.
I was buying a toslink cable recently and I shit you not, there was a gold plated optical cable…
Fucking Toslink: one round optical fiber in the middle, but it plugs in in only one position out of four, and you can’t feel which way the female connector is. EU should fine the assholes responsible.
Doesn‘t that defeat the entire purpose of Toslink cables ? The light can‘t go through gold?
The connector was gold plated. Not a golden wire.
I 100% believe you.
I remember buying some bits and pieces to setup my home theatre in a new house years ago, and the guy at the store tried to sell me a $100 TOSLINK cable. When I asked why a $12 cable was going for so much, he pointed out that it was the “premium” cable, to ensure the highest quality audio.
I couldn’t stop laughing. Like their special cable scrubbed the photons before sending them or something.
I agree, but with one caveat.
Fully analog tube amps do definitely produce a warmer/richer sound with less complicated things to go wrong. Artists like them because they are reliable, generally user serviceable, (usually just need to replace bad/old tubes) and makes each recording sound relatively unique.
The thing is, is that it really only works during production. Unless being cut direct to a master record, the sound will get saved in a digital format to produce the user-facing media, which can include digital-source vinyls.
Those products marketed to audiophiles try to take the digitally recorded/archived products to “try” making it sound like the original.
deleted by creator
Oil pulling, if you’re also OOTL. Swishing fancy oil around your mouth.
One of my co-workers went for that whole hog. I remember him telling me there was no need to brush any more - just swirl oil around your mouth for ten minutes. I don’t know if it works, but brushing only takes two minutes…
Well, there’s nothing wrong with using coconut oil for gum health. Some people even use it as a mouthwash because it was some antibacterial properties. It doesn’t replace the need for brushing your goddamn teeth, that’s an insane thing to think. But there is actually benefits to coconut oil for sensitive teeth (along with a change in diet), antibacterial properties, as well as the normal benefits of consuming coconut oil. It’s not all complete hogwash.
Removed by mod
When they are talking about essential oils, they are talking about the peddling Karens and Staceys that consume overpriced lavender oil and shit with every meal and also put it into the food of their kids. And then wonder why their kid exhibits sings of certain poisoning and hives.
Removed by mod
Organic food? Please let me take that out of your list. Organic produce has a huge lot of benefits over industrial, to both the consumer and the environment.
All food is organic. Every bit of it is made of carbon building blocks.
That’s another meaning for the word “organic”.
All it takes to qualify for the organic label is a payment to the right industry group.
That’s another thing. That’s organic certification.
Yep. I’m pretty sure. But we have to distinguish “organic input based produce” v/s regenerative agriculture, which is also “organic”. And there’s a huge gray area in between.
All food is organic. Unless you have a crop like a chicken (you don’t), you really shouldn’t put any inorganic materials in your body.
That’s another meaning for the word “organic”.
What is
Organic means both chemical compounds that contain carbon and a form of agriculture that complies with certain standarda
Chiropractic
I dunno what shysters you’ve all been going to. My chiro, with his kinesiology degree and full physiotherapy ticket in addition to his nationally-recognized certification, seems to do a lot more “do these stretches and stop sitting stupidly” guidance and reeeeally isn’t interested in a “programme of wellness” grift that my friends in other regions worry about.
Downvotes? What, jealous my guy isn’t an overt shyster quack like the horror stories? I hope when you need them, there’s a good one out there for ya. I’m 30 years on a wicked back injury and I’m still limber so woo!
Chiropractic is literally based on the teachings of a ghost while haunting its founder.
No, really. Look it up.
Not all, but a lot of coaches. Like the 23-year old just out of school “executive coach”, or the “lifestyle coaches”, “energetic coaches” etc.
Extra expensive digital hifi cables.
I remember seeing a €180 hdmi cable at a shop.
PfFt. Amateur level stuff!
Try this on for size:
https://www.audioquest.com/products/dragon-48-hdmi-cable
And that’s not the limit, either.
What?! No! Why?!
If even one person is dumb and rich enough to buy it, then it’s worth it to make the website to try to sell it to them. And we live in a world with many such people.
I like this old one too, the cat destroyed the outer layer of an expensive audiophile power cable, revealing a garden hose below…
needless to say, the owner decided to look deeper.
deleted by creator
Blue light filter on glasses. When I got my glasses, the lady said they come with blue light filter for free, and I said, “I don’t want that, my job requires that I see colors accurately, so I can’t have any sort of color filter.” She said don’t worry, it doesn’t filter any colors. Ok, then what the fuck is it exactly?
She was just upselling, not actually knowledgeable. They filter some blue spectrum, not the whole color blue.
They literally have no blue light filter in them. It was just marketing snake oil. I don’t even know why they do that. Who would want that in their glasses?
I have a blue light filter on my glasses. I opted in because I sometimes use screens close to bed time for work.
I’m not going to tell you they work better then a placebo, but they work as good as one, and that’s all I need.
They are 100% yellow tinted. Anyone who tells you they don’t block blue light is a liar.
Same here, and I’ve tested it with a blue laser and the lenses block the blue laser almost completely. It’s definitely a benefit to have the blue / UV filter coating on glasses. Another easy test is to walk outside in the bright June sunlight and look around with and without the glasses. The UV filtering reduces eye strain outdoors in the bright sun too, but obviously not as well as sunglasses.
I thought it was a coating, like what they use to filter UV light. I have Theraspecs that do it, but those are sunglasses.
If it’s a UV filter, they should call it a UV filter, not a blue light filter. If it doesn’t filter blue light, then it’s not a blue light filter.
Here’s an expert explaining why they’re a scam: https://www.quora.com/If-blue-light-on-smartphones-causes-macular-degeneration-shouldnt-it-be-illegal/answer/Bill-Otto-5
Hmm wasn’t expecting an actual answer on Quora but I was pleasantly surprised
I practice polyphasic sleep and reducing blue light is pretty important there to avoid messing your circadian rhythm.
The community recomends wearing the orange laser protection glasses, the same ones laser cutter operators use. Because that’s what glasses actually have to look like to filter blue light.
That reminds me of my quora account. One of my answers gets a few views every once in a while and they send me ten notifications about it.
You cannot be serious? Haha
Most devices have a built in “night light” that does it anyway.
Anecdotally, I have two pairs of glasses where one has the filter and the other does not. I experience less eye strain when working at the computer with the filtered glasses. There’s a definite yellow tint to them, but you don’t notice after a while.
However, I 100% believe that it could be the placebo effect, so take from that what you will.
If yours have a yellow tint then at least they actually have a filter. Mine have zero tint whatsoever. (Which is what I want, but they were marketed to me as having blue light filter.)
I’ve worn blue filtered glasses for the past few years and there’s definitely a noticeable tint to them
There are wave lengths that you cannot perceive, like, I don’t know… UV, maybe?
Yes, but that’s called UV, not blue. Blue light filter is a thing, and this was not that.
Essential oil.
If you run a website: Paid SSL/TLS certificates. Free ones like Let’s Encrypt and ZeroSSL are just as good, and can be automatically renewed.
