• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    184
    ·
    1 year ago

    What does this save, like a milliwatt per year? One of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

    • persolb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      158
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sending the JavaScript to do this literally uses more electricity than this saves.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is classic. Corpos that are the biggest polluters are also the ones that push hardest on the idea of “carbon footprint”

        The more they can convince people that climate change is their fault, the less likely people vote for a government that will regulate the corpos

        • hombre fundido@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Throughline (podcast) did an episode on corporations off-loading responsibility for stuff like this onto the populace.

          Found it: episode is called “The Litter Myth.”

    • SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s only going to save power if you’re using an oled, since for most lcd screens the backlight is on whether you display black or white.

      All my websites are jet black, and the black is only really black on my phone which has an oled screen.

      Either way, it’s just greenwashing. These companies are only pretending to give a crap so they can get brownie points with people who can’t see what they’re doing.

      • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most lcds take a tiny bit of current to darken a pixel I think. The ground state would be white and power is used to get the lcd in the state where it changes the lights polarization to get it blocked by the polarization filter in front of it

        • SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I assume that would depend on the polarization of the screen. I wonder which is more common?

          • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I think it’s this way around because precision is higher at higher power, so the minor deviations close to no voltage applied are hidden in minute white variations, while near blacks are way more precise. But don’t quote me on that

    • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Back in CRT days, the difference between full white and full black could be as much as 100W. Before dark mode existed, people developed sites like Blackle to reduce the power usage of Googling.

    • AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Traditional LCD screens actually use more power to make black.

      OLED screens might save a tiny bit of power though.

    • Corhen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Came here to say that. So clearly doesn’t change anything (unless you are on a cellphone or have an expensive OLED computer screen)

      Fuck nestle

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not all phones; just ones with OLED screens.

        CRTs will also save power as they have to shoot fewer phosphors, but that’s not really relevant today.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Only midrange to high-end devices. Cheaper ones (which are very common especially in poorer countries) still use simpler LCD/LED screens.

            LCD screens have a backlight that’s always on and consumes the same amount of power regardless of what’s on the screen. OLEDs don’t have a backlight; when the screen is dark, the pixels in that area are actually turned off.

    • Synthead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now that most of my pixels are a different color… we can, um… we fixed, erm… wait, what is that supposed to do again? Did we do a global climate change or nah?

  • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Contribute even more by closing the browser and not buying anything from this shithole of a company.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish it was that easy, but nestle has taken almost 80% of global middleman positions in the food market, they have become a pseudo monopoly in the food industry.

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everywhere you look end stage capitalism is enshittifying itself. The neolibs, having insisted that There Is No Alternative, are confronted with their system in full and manifest self destruction.

            • markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              The current version of the system is literally self destructing by destroying the ecosystem. It is also destroying its other external interface: human consciousness, but that is a more complicated discussion.

              • brap_gobbo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The way I see it is this search for money won’t destroy the world completely, but it will probably end up with humans leading their own extinction event and taking lots of other species with us. The world will eventually heal many of its wounds… without us.

              • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not destroying the environment is as easy as researching less polluting and more productive methods, like nuclear fusion. The only thing left to do in that matter is not making it deficitary

                Innovation is one of the main things that keep capitalism going, but state-supported or state-ignored monopolies prevent it from happening as people really have no other alternative apart from the monopoly company to buy goods and services

                • markr@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So thanks for providing a great example of the aggressively blinding grip of ideology over our ability to understand our reality. We’ve already broken the ecosphere. A nonexistent technology is not going to save us from the disaster that has already happened. Also the owners of the energy supply are aggressively defending their vastly profitable businesses from any threat to their profits. They’ve done quite well at that, see the comment from you.

  • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stupid because it makes zero difference for any screen that uses a backlight, which is most of them. And then they could just set dark mode as the default if it actually mattered, which it doesn’t. You can be stupid, but to be really stupid takes a corpo like Nestle.

    • shadeless@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      For oleds, it makes a difference and not an insignificant number of smartphones today use OLED screens.

      However, if the microwatt-hour of battery saved by browsing a shitty website of a shitty company for a few minutes saves the planet is another story…

      • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Whatever gets saved will be burned up by their megabytes of JS running in the background collecting single point of data they possibly can

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing that’ll save more microwatts is if they removed about 3 dozen of the tracking scripts from the website but we all know no company website will ever do that

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t make that much difference on OLEDs. The thing about OLED is that different diodes consume different amounts of energy. Blue diode requires the most energy, green diode requires about the same amount of energy as the red one, but there are more green diodes in pentile screen.

        Thus the only energy saving option is a dark red background. And no one is using it. It will also look like shit in most cases.

        Here’s a paper which shows that dark grey background basically consumes twice as much energy as dark red one https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/website/downloadArticle/cic/26/1/art00005

        • shadeless@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but if the OLED screen has to display black (RGB 000), it turns off the diodes completely. But as you said, most dark modes have a dark grey background which doesn’t do shit (jerboa has a black option btw)

  • Piers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can be sure that they are counting every hypothetical drop of energy saved this way and taking credit for it to their benefit somewhere.

  • HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    On LCD displays dark mode actually uses more electricity; the brightness is always there, and you need to power the liquid-crystal layer to block that light to result in darker colours.

    This whole myth about darker screens saving energy goes way back to the old CRT days when it actually did save some energy.

    Yall remember Blackle?

    • I use NixOS btw @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many phones have OLED displays, which physically turn off the pixels in black areas. Since the site is on mobile, it does make a bit of sense.

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        But then most dark modes aren’t pitch black. I guess it might save a bit of power by just being at a low brightness. Anyways I need my dark mode and also night mode.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Less brightness means less light emitted by the diodes means less power is used. They may not turn off, but they still use less.

          • HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fun fact! Many OLED displays dim the whole image not by making the diodes dimmer, but by pulsing the diodes fast enough to match the desired brightness of each pixel.

            You can test this by taking your OLED phone, pulling up an image, and then waving it around at different brightness levels; the observed image would become blurry at high brightness levels, but would separate into distinct “frames” at lower brightness.

            I’m not sure if every OLED does this; just from the phones that I have used.

    • Zephyr_0713@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In case you are using an OLED screen or one of its variants, the difference is noticeable since they turn off the pixels that are black and, therefore, less electricity is consumed.

        • VediusPollio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes for OLED. Sometimes for LCD.

          From what I understand, LCDs can have a resting state that will either stop light, or a resting state that will let light through. The backlight remains on, but a panel that natively blocks the light will require less power when showing black.

    • justsomeguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The vampires of the Nestlé board don’t like being blinded by bright screens as they roam the night in search for the blood of the innocent.

      • BloodSlut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please don’t compare nestle to vampires. Vampires still have a heart even if it’s not beating.

        • justsomeguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Username checks out. Didn’t mean to offend your people. At least you suck blood for nourishment and not just for fun.

  • WhatASave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What the fuck does that even mean lol. I didn’t think dark mode even did that?

    • new_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      It kinda does if your screen is OLED. The black pixels are actually turned off on OLED screens.

      On other type of screens - like LCD - the backlight is always turned on

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, but then we are talking about actually black backgrounds, which is normally a big no-no in UI design.

      • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        A black pixel in an LCD is in the ‘on’ position with voltage applied. So dark mode uses more power on an LCD, though the number is small.

      • WhatASave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but I’ve heard it’s still negligible and almost every dark mode is dark, not pure black.

    • dukeGR4@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      With OLED, yeah it is indeed more sustainable cause less energy usage but damn it’s a stupid thing to say and remind from their end. It’s already implied

  • Willer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is very strangely phrased. The “sustainable experience” to me suggests my personal experience like eye fatigue even tho “sustainable” is not the most fitting word for that. But the “contribute” suggests ecological subjects. Whatever it may be it is ur average corporate paternalism nonetheless.

    Edit: Maybe im off here it may solely be greenwashing, the eye comfort take doesnt really make sense.

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Contribute to a more sustainable experience by not buying shit from Nestlé.

    🙂