[wasabi991011]

Here is a non-paywalled link: https://www.lisungroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IEEE-2...

Sure, PWM light can cause health risks for some people, in some contexts. But taking research out of context is bad science.

Do you genuinely believe the Pixel 7 and 8 Pro have an "extremely high health risk", in the context of what a lay person would understand?

Edit: I specify 'lay-person' because clearly this is an introductory blog post (or advertisement for Daylight Computer). If they want to use a more specific definition of health risk, then they better define it.

[_3yjt]

The “very/moderate high” comes from the standard itself, which is quantified within the standard. In the context, it is about the probability of having issues, while the effect (mild to catastrophic) is another axis. Considering that they stick to the “official” wording and seeing the criticism, I am not even sure if they can change to a more “lay-person” friendly and be acceptable to all the critics.

The standard also linked to the researches during their discussion.

Please read it, instead of just randomly throw out things hoping that they supported your argument.

[demosthanos]

You can't just point people at a 60-page paywalled standard and say "the supporting evidence to my claim is somewhere in here, I pinky promise". You are the one making assertions, it's on you to prove that the standard actually does reflect the text of TFA. I'm not going to read the whole standard because I'm not the one making the argument and I can't be bothered doing the research needed to refute every piece of nonsense science that shows up on the internet. What I can do is point out when someone is making unsourced claims and insist that they provide their sources if they want to be taken seriously.

Cite the exact page number and quote that you claim justifies the assertion that 246 Hz PWM carries an "extremely high" health risk. Then we can talk.

[_3yjt]

Look, they sourced their claims (quite literally, they put how they calculate, from which standard). And linking to the correct document is literally how scientific citation works — I replied the page to you above anyway.

If you want to redo the numbers and check if they fit the definition, please feel free to do so, but you will need to put some works in (since the flicker hz -> risk showing in the article is a computed value, you need to find the modulation value and plug it in too)

I understand your fight and your idea, I am just saying that in this specific instance, this is not a fight to be fought. The article is generally correct, and if you want to complain about the writing style or it being an ads, it’s up to you. But this is not the same situation with GMO stuffs

[demosthanos]

> Look, they sourced their claims (quite literally, they put how they calculate, from which standard).

No, they said that IEEE 1789 also uses Modulation % (which they've renamed Flicker %) to calculate risks. That is pointedly not the same thing as claiming that they used IEEE 1789's formulas.

You're reading their copy generously, but that doesn't usually pay with marketing copy. Articles like this always like to wave in the general direction of official-sounding sources while carefully refraining from actually claiming that they got their numbers from anywhere in particular.