While I don't doubt that the author could fix this up, you are not helpless either. If you have colour/vision problems it is often worthwhile to install a client-reader bookmarklet or plugin to your browser, which may come along with a host of other benefits (like saving, place-marking, etc).

Or a bookmarklet like this one:

    javascript:(function(){function%20R(w){try{var%20d=w.document,j,i,t,T,N,b,r=1,C;for(j=0;t=["object","embed","applet","iframe"][j];++j){T=d.getElementsByTagName(t);for(i=T.length-1;(i+1)&&(N=T[i]);--i)if(j!=3||!R((C=N.contentWindow)?C:N.contentDocument.defaultView)){b=d.createElement("div");b.style.width=N.width;%20b.style.height=N.height;b.innerHTML="<del>"+(j==3?"third-party%20"+t:t)+"</del>";N.parentNode.replaceChild(b,N);}}}catch(E){r=0}return%20r}R(self);var%20i,x;for(i=0;x=frames[i];++i)R(x)})();%20javascript:(function(){var%20newSS,%20styles='*%20{%20background:%20white%20!%20important;%20color:%20black%20!important%20}%20:link,%20:link%20*%20{%20color:%20#0000EE%20!important%20}%20:visited,%20:visited%20*%20{%20color:%20#551A8B%20!important%20}';%20if(document.createStyleSheet)%20{%20document.createStyleSheet("javascript:'"+styles+"'");%20}%20else%20{%20newSS=document.createElement('link');%20newSS.rel='stylesheet';%20newSS.href='data:text/css,'+escape(styles);%20document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(newSS);%20}%20})();%20javascript:(function(){var%20d=document;%20function%20K(N,w)%20{%20var%20nn%20=%20d.createElement(w),%20C%20=%20N.childNodes,%20i;%20for(i=C.length-1;i>=0;--i)%20nn.insertBefore(C[i],nn.childNodes[0]);%20N.parentNode.replaceChild(nn,N);%20}%20function%20Z(t,w)%20{%20var%20T%20=%20document.getElementsByTagName(t),%20j;%20for%20(j=T.length-1;j>=0;--j)%20K(T[j],w);%20}%20Z("blink",%20"span");%20Z("marquee",%20"div");%20})();%20javascript:(function(){var%20H=["mouseover","mouseout","unload","resize"],o=window.opera;%20if(document.addEventListener/*MOZ*/&&!o)%20for(j%20in%20H)document.addEventListener(H[j],function(e){e.stopPropagation();},true);%20else%20if(window.captureEvents/*NS4*/&&!o)%20{%20document.captureEvents(-1/*ALL*/);for(j%20in%20H)window["on"+H[j]]=null;}%20else/*IE*/%20{function%20R(N){var%20i,x;for(j%20in%20H)if(N["on"+H[j]]/*NOT%20TEXTNODE*/)N["on"+H[j]]=null;for(i=0;x=N.childNodes[i];++i)R(x);}R(document);}})();%20javascript:(function()%20{%20var%20c,%20tID,%20iID;%20tID%20=%20setTimeout(function(){},%200);%20for%20(c=1;%20c<1000%20&&%20c<=tID;%20++c)%20clearTimeout(tID%20-%20c);%20iID%20=%20setInterval(function(){},1000);%20for%20(c=0;%20c<1000%20&&%20c<=iID;%20++c)%20clearInterval(iID%20-%20c);%20})();

which strips out basically all the ill-considered design choices you're likely to find on a page, including best-of-1993 color palettes like that under discussion here.

If you don't want to go that route, most modern browsers have a reader function built in, which extracts the page content and displays it with high contrast, a readable font, and no annoyances.

Note that it's not so much the grey-on-black that's offensive, but the bright green and dark purple that produce eye strain. If you're going to use a black background, use light pastel colors for your fonts. That's usually a pretty good reading experience.

I agree. Its quite distracting. I didn't get through it.

I didn't find it offensive. The color scheme isn't that far off from what I prefer for my terminal settings.

What would you have preferred the author do differently?

I absolutely agree, but not everyone is gifted with good taste. Try the Instapapr Text bookmarklet!

I like the colors a lot. Much easier on the eyes than blinding white with gray text.

This is not what "offensive" means.

It's a bit of an older usage than is common today, but it is correct. You'll also find this usage in phrases like "offensive odor".

That's exactly what offensive means.

adjective 1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials. 2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor. 3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting:

Yeah, every website needs to be plastered with big Fisher Price[tm] Facebook buttons and have unreadable hipster light-gray-on-white text.

True story.

I don't know how long it will take us till we finally stop with the white backgrounds...

The process of weeding out. Sometimes it's better to select against sensitive people.

Why would you select against people with poor vision?

The green seems a bit harsh, yes.

But all in all it is a good page for people with poor vision.

No low-contrast and no white background, which are both considered bad on screens.

Yes, the white on black is fine. I checked the #8a7ae2 purple (http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/) and, surprisingly, it passes WCAG AAA guidelines. I say "surprisingly" because it hurts my eyes. I think jumping between the alternating white and purple is what does it.

Why do you hate freedom?

Why would you select against people reading your article?

Why would you select against `; drop database prod;?