this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
36 points (81.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

3998 readers
119 users here now

There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!

Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.


Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!


Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice 🍉.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I swear, they like to live in a news studio-level brightness. Its all overhead lighting and bright, cool light at night

Absolute sensory hell for me.

Straw poll: which looks better?

Theyre both too brightly lit imo but the warm is definitey nicer. I want to escape any room place lit like the right

Tap for spoilerNow, imagine its like the cool white, but its even brighter and o'erhead💀

Skeleton's be cool white...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, you've got some iffy assumptions in place, but that's whatever.

When it comes to lighting, in home, you're limited by the home itself unless you have the ability/finances to change things at a useful scale.

So, older homes tend to have older lighting installations. Back in the day, the big thing was fluorescent lighting. Some compact, some the full on tubes and rings. A lot of old folks now are just sticking with what was the dominant technology at the time they had the ability to pick how they lit their homes, or bought them.

Since vision does weaken over a lifetime, more intense lighting is helpful.

Here's the thing though. Back in the day, I always wondered why so many old folks had such dim and poorly spread lighting. It was the same reason. Their homes were structured around incandescent bulbs and lamps. So there was little choice in spectrum, and your light sources weren't going to fill the space well.

Right now, LED lighting and better spreads are the norm for new installs and remodeling. And folks are more willing to shell out for expensive bulbs that allow for changing the spectrum, so you'll run into that as the default for old folks here in maybe twenty years.

My house is old as fuck. Built back before anyone currently alive had been born yet. Then partially rebuilt in the seventies, with a partial remodel in the late nineties.

You can tell by walking through the house what lighting was popular at the times involved because the oldest parts have a single fixture in the center of the ceiling, and fuck you if you want a better layout lol. The seventies era bits have some retrofit fluorescent fixtures that are essentially just a different spectrum with similar placements.

But the nineties era parts are better lit, with fixtures placed to give an even light with less/no harsh spots.

Now, I've replaced the incandescent bulbs with LEDs, and they had been compact fluorescent bulbs before that. But there's no way in hell I would spend the amount of money it would take to light the house better on lighting. There's other shit way higher in priority when I can just screw in a higher power bulb and see okay. And, once "old" turns into old, as in stuck on social security/pension fixed income old, remodels tend not to be a useful outlay for lighting. You'd be going after bathroom and kitchen accessibility fixes instead.

I had to replace the fixture in the kitchen maybe two years ago, the old one having aged into decrepitude beyond the ability to cut on. I barely got the job done. So, fixed income and unable to do the work one's self means shit just stays as it is. I would have loved to put in better fixtures, better quality lighting, but all I could manage was a new thing to screw a bulb into. And I'm only "old", not old. Middle aged still, but with limitations akin to that of proper senior citizens.

For real, if this house had been updated twenty years ago, we'd have likely been plopping in big fluorescents overhead too, like was the default at that time.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Would you actually use the fluorescent? I would just ignore or take them out and get lamps. Its really crappy light except for waking up in my opinion. I also feel like its not good for my mind, like it is thoroughly and constitutionally offensive to me

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, fluorescent is good at filling up space with light. It's the tube factor. It emits the light better overall (even compact fluorescent screw ins are a little better than incandescent because the actual light emitting part is at the surface kinda).

It's actually really good in a space where you need even lighting rather than good lighting. Works spaces, like in a shop or kitchen, you want less shadows and more coverage, even if it's in that wonky blue that fluorescents have. If you're stuck with a single overhead, fluorescent is just better than incandescent, and can have advantages over LED or halogen. Sure, you'd want to supplement with a surface based directional source, but that's way easier than trying to light with lamps only

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I wish such light could be a bit less agressive tho, like even if it could be shaded slightly pink or rose-goldey, that would be a bit nicer even for those spaces that need to be well-lit

Like soft pink

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If being highly offended by other people’s lights is a problem to you, you must have it good. Not everyone can afford new lights, there’s implications like needing an electrician or even new infrastructure, some people might not like changing for sustainability reasons.

Let it go, let it go…trying singing it.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Has nothing todo with expensive fixtures, anyone can get lamps