Is an IPS screen displaying static content better than a properly illuminated sheet of paper? I hardly believe that.

Of course I remember how difficult was to properly illuminate my notebooks when I was a kid. I guess I'd end up with two lamps on my sides and they are difficult to move as easily as a laptop.

For dynamic content, eg ls -la, scrolling through a file, watching to a video, doing a video call, it's no contest.

I know, counter-intuitive it was for me too!

Professor Michael Young, Michael Rosbash and Jeffrey C. Hall won a Nobel Prize for research in this area in 2017.

[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2017/press-releas...

[2] https://bubblin.io/blog/daylight-energy-fatigue

Conclusion of [2]

"If you are a night owl, you might be better off with a tablet, but if you are a daytime reader who prefers reading outside in the Sun, then a reflective e-reader or a physical book is a better option.

Other than that, there is no difference between the two screens."

> e-ink screens are objectively worse for our eyes than an IPS panel screen.

That's not actually true. I have glasses explicitly to prevent eye-strain for when I'm working on the computer, even when it is an IPS/retina display with 2X pixel scaling. However I don't need glasses at all when reading books on a kindle or kobo.

Which glasses are these? I'm finding that my eyes are pretty much permanently strained while I'm staring at my computer screen...

I went to an optometrist and got a prescription. I actually went to two different optometrists and one of them misdiagnosed me. My prescription is extremely minimal, +1.25 on one eye and -1.25 on the other or something like that but it makes all the difference. If your eyes are extremely strained you may need to ask for the extremely strong eye relaxant drops when you visit your optometrist.. and warn him or her that you may have minus eyes. Apparently it's hard to properly diagnose minus eyes without doubling up on the eye drops.

Not OP, but I ordered one of these[0] recently. Really a game changer.

P.S I'm not affiliated in any way

0: gmg-performance.com

Weren't blue-light filtering glasses proved to be with no known benefits? E.g. [1].

Personally, I'm very sensitive to light and get frequent debilitating headaches. Blue light filter changes very little for me. Making the whole screen just red with something like flux (together with my glasses that also block blue light) might help around 5-10%, but the migraine still comes full force (maybe 10-15m later).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkJY9bgLyBE

I think your experience with migraines can hardly inform a typical person's experience with blue-light filters and a random hidden camera exposé is not really going to "prove" anything. Also, flux is aimed at sleep regulation, where blue-light filtering is aimed at claimed damage reduction and increased acuity.

However, there do seem to be no studies proving efficacy, indeed.

> I think your experience with migraines can hardly inform a typical person's experience with blue-light filters

I would guess it's the opposite--because I'm extremely sensitive to light in general, I'd think if blue-light filters were effective, they'd be even more effective on me, which they aren't.

> Also, flux is aimed at sleep regulation

People seem to equate "less blue light" with "better" and yet when I make my screen dark orange/red, it does nothing.

Also note that I said something like Flux.

Last but not least, my glasses also have blue-light filter in them. So I'm reducing blue light with both HW and SW and it has very minuscule effect on me, personally.

Of course, it's anecdotal experience and nothing more. But I get an eye twitch when I see stuff like "blue filter is a game changer". Sounds like placebo to me.