[tominous]

Not denying that there are many ways in which development can go wrong, whether that's genetic or the environment. What I'm responding to is the sudden change seen in many populations as per the article.

Re: the chromatic aberration spread, see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3716229/

They measured 1.82 diopters between 420nm and 660nm. Visible light is a bit wider, 380nm to 720nm, so 2 diopters is about right.

You easily can see this in a dark data centre. If your vision is perfectly corrected (which normally means perfect for red-green light) you won't be able to focus on a blue LED unless you are about 50cm away.

[californical]

Huh, I always wondered why blue LEDs that were further away would be hard to look at & make me dizzy, that’s crazy!

[alanh]

Pure blue light does the least to stimulate the rods that help you see shapes clearly, only activating blue cones. This is why compression algorithms and some screens use 2 or 4 times as many bytes or phosphors for green as they do for blue https://biodifferences.com/difference-between-rods-and-cones...

This is also why writing a word in pure blue neon lights is really dumb. Adding just a little bit of green to it helps readability immensely.

[ymolodtsov]

I'm really interested in this topic since I've always noticed this, but not sure about this explanation as to why. I mean, yes, Bayes filter is like 2x1x1 for green, *red* and blue, and the most popular explanation has always been that our eyes perceive green better than both red and blue. Yet I don't have issues with red LED lights.