As someone with astigmatism, I prefer dark modes in almost all places as long as it's done correctly. Bright screens with dark text cause significantly more eyestrain for me. My wife also has astigmatism and prefers light backgrounds with dark text. For the same reasons. I think the key here for accessibility is choice.

Environmental lighting conditions rule the day! I have astigmatism and I prefer bright backgrounds; #000 text on #fff backgrounds works great for me, but that's because I work in a room lit by a 250W 30,000 lumen corn-cob LED bulb[0] that makes my small office as bright on the inside as the shaded ground from a tree on an overcast day (which is quite bright compared to usual indoor lighting). In a room that bright, high contrast text works great and is highly readable, with "dark mode" often looking washed out and muddy. Even small reductions in contrast (such as what https://devdocs.io does with text of #333 in light mode) can make me notice and wish for greater contrast.

[0] - https://www.benkuhn.net/lux/

I agree, users should be able to pick whatever works better for them.

There's a myth going on that dark mode is universally/objectively better which is simply false.

I too have astigmatism and am a light mode enjoyer. Dark mode makes the letters dance in front of my eyes.

Display brightness at 20% is life. Never made sense to me why you’d shine the light of a thousand suns in your eyes then put sunglasses on it because “it’s too bright” when you could just not.

My partner is a dark mode user and honestly sometimes her phone screen lights up the whole bedroom. Even with dark mode. I don’t understand.

I'm with your wife on this one, and also either one of those is way better than "grey on whatever" that seemed to be a prevalent design choice for a few years for many websites.

Low contrast is hell.

While their complaints are legitimate, it seems to go against the spirit of the GNU Boot project.

Note that they don't believe it posed any additional health risks, they identified the issue that caused it and believe it affected single batch: "All the vials came from a single lot, but shots from two other lots from the same Rovi manufacturing line were suspended as a precaution." So likely nothing to worry about at scale.

> they don't believe it posed any additional health risks

> So likely nothing to worry about at scale

> About 500,000 people have received shots from the three suspended Moderna batches

Why are you so confidently advocating for a "safe until proven unsafe" mentality here? The health impacts from this contamination are completely unknown, and could impact a lot of people, and their children, etc.

EDIT: down vote all you want, armchair reasoning does not prove that this contamination is safe - cite some relevant scientific literature to support your claims

I suspect you're being downvoted by people who simply recognise your username at this point. It's disappointing because I think your comments for the most part are fine, people just seem to take offence to you not being a vaccine zealot.

In doing my part to stick to the topic at hand, I tried to find some research which supports these claims about stainless steel. It seems like Nickel is typically a component of stainless steel and is generally not something you want to have in your body[1].

I'm also not sure how the additional iron, presumably being processed by the liver, might affect someone who has cirrhosis.

I assume "nothing to worry about at scale" really means "not likely to immediately kill a bunch of people".

[1] http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol10/100503792.pdf

Thanks for the feedback and the citation, that was an interesting read.

Here are a couple more good papers I skimmed through today while looking into this topic. I agree on the "not likely to immediately kill a bunch of people" point. From what I can tell, there are very few longitudinal studies evaluating the health outcomes from metallic corrosion and wear from implants.

Citing [1], stainless steel corrosion is associated with "distinct inflammation and tissue reactions in the surrounding soft tissue with high amounts of particles".

[1] Wear and corrosion in medical applications https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cdbme-2020-31...

[2] Difference in metallic wear distribution released from commercially pure titanium compared with stainless steel plates https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-003-0614-9

Because the vaccines are political now, so there isn't any room for uncertainty. You're either for or against.

There are ways to predict what will happen besides randomized controlled trials.

What's being advocated here?

The batch is being recalled. They think it's nothing to panic people who have received it based on us having decades of blood-contact data for stainless alloys.

If you're going to attack the messenger, at least read the message.