zlacker

So, it's crap that he's done something that made him feel better. Yea.

It's not science. And yes, he very well might feel better just be because he did something he believes in. But I don't see why that warrants a response like yours.

>>anaraz+(OP)
The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me. The first paragraph disparages all existing commercial products and states, matter-of-factly that his approach is the one true way. The second paragraph states "Clinical studies have found that bright light treats SAD effectively" which is also a stretch.

The article contains no research or sources except for a single Wikipedia link. It contains much hubris, yet no author's name. It does however contain numerous affiliate links. The article warrants a response like mine because the article is bullshit.

>>tacos+J1
Well, do you need more lumens? No, seriously. Do you?

If not, then what is your point? Are you a SAD researcher with training and experience working with SAD? Or are you a SAD sufferer or have first-hand experience with SAD?

If the answer to those questions is no, then you are starting to sound no different from the arrogant ignoramuses who think people with depression should just "get over it".

This is HN and regardless of the scientific soundness of the post, it is a nifty hack. I might even make it. And use the affiliate links to show my appreciation of the person who made and shared the project. What's wrong with that?

Perhaps you should question your assumptions before calling bullshit. What else are you missing out on in life with such an attitude?

>>shiven+Q3
So, your passive agressive closing is not better than open confrontation, only that it's direct.

>>tacos+J1
The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me.

In informal English there is no accepted equivalent to the third-person pronoun "one", so people reuse the second-person pronoun "you".