When Saturday Night Live announced that Timothée Chalamet would be both the host and musical guest on this week’s episode, the reaction was largely: huh?

What would Chalamet, a skilled actor not usually known as a musical artist, perform? Would he revive his high-school rap alias Lil Timmy Tim? Reprise his role as Willy Wonka? Or would he just sing Bob Dylan songs, considering he has been on a long promotional tour for his turn as the folk artist in the biopic A Complete Unknown? Would he come out strumming hits such as “Blowin’ in the Wind”?

He did sing Dylan songs last night—but notably, he did not feature the most popular stuff. Chalamet’s musical numbers were inspired interpretations of Dylan deep cuts, including “Three Angels” and “Tomorrow Is a Long Time.” His performances were weird, smart, and entertaining, and a way to show people that his dedication to Dylan has been serious.

Chalamet’s hosting stint was clearly strategic. Oscar nominations came out on Thursday, and his name was called as expected, making him, at 29, the youngest two-time nominee for the Best Actor category since James Dean. Chalamet highlighted the achievement in his monologue, explaining that he was in his SNL dressing room when he heard the news. “The entire creative team worked extremely hard bringing to life the brilliant artist Bob Dylan, a man whose music and career has become a guiding light to me,” he said, earnestly. No jokes could be found in that statement, which sounded like the kind of thing you’d say on the stage of the Dolby Theatre, holding a trophy.

[Read: The Oscars have left the mainstream moviegoer behind]

But as Chalamet would quickly remind viewers: Although his work has been praised quite a bit for someone who has yet to hit 30, he also hasn’t won all that many awards. “I just keep losing,” he said. “And each time, it gets harder to pretend it doesn’t sting.” That prompted a montage of Chalamet at various awards shows hearing the likes of Gary Oldman and Mahershala Ali get their name called instead of him, his angular face barely masking disappointment by the end. He told the SNL audience that he would use this hosting opportunity to give the acceptance speech he’d been carrying around and handed an envelope to a person seated in the audience to announce his name. However, that was a set up for another joke: The winner inside the envelope was not Chalamet but the cast member Kenan Thompson. Still the monologue had a sincere tone overall; Chalamet, rather than seeming like a sore loser, cannily presented himself as an underdog.

In the episode’s sketches, Chalamet was an enthusiastic participant (as he has been the past two times he’s hosted), throwing himself into characters including an overly enthusiastic bungee-fitness instructor, a nurse who does CPR by farting on faces, and a dog at a park meeting other pups. Though these were proficient moments of comedy, the two musical sets were where he really showed off.

He didn’t play the famous songs that appear in A Complete Unknown, which tracks Dylan’s emergence in the 1960s folk scene. Instead, Chalamet pulled out what he called his “personal favorites”—and revealed choices that appeal to Dylan fanatics rather than casual listeners.

He first sang a medley of “Outlaw Blues,” off the 1965 album Bringing It All Back Home, and “Three Angels,” from 1970’s New Morning, each rendition receiving its own elaborate, deliberate production that proved this was no half-hearted effort. He wore big, bug-eyed sunglasses during the more upbeat “Outlaw Blues,” rocking and dancing across the stage as lights flashed to the tune. For the latter song he sat down next to the electro-pop artist James Blake, who backed him up with vocals and keys, and slowed down, reciting the song as if it were a poem. During the second musical break, Chalamet, perched on a stool, demonstrated his acoustic-guitar-strumming technique on “Tomorrow Is a Long Time,” a Dylan song sometimes associated with its Elvis Presley cover.

When an actor portrays a renowned musician in a movie, it’s not a given that they have actual musical talent. Chalamet’s promotional tour for A Complete Unknown emphasized the fact that he performed all its songs himself; even that, however, could be written off as pure mimicry. Simply imitating Dylan did not seem to be Chalamet’s aim on SNL, however. The actor presented his own interpretations of Dylan’s music, melding the Nobel Prize winner’s artistry with Chalamet’s own streetwear-influenced style and more contemporary musical tastes—as evidenced by the presence of Blake’s signature wail.

[Read: Bob Dylan’s carnival act]

For anyone who was questioning Chalamet’s commitment to playing Dylan—including potential Oscar voters—the night was proof that the actor’s engagement with the musician went beyond the pure confines of the cinematic role. And for those who thought that Chalamet doing double duty on SNL might be a joke, the thoughtful way in which he approached his job as musical guest may have quieted any doubt. Not only did he pay respect to Dylan; he made clear that he can put on a show that’s all his own.

God said, “Let there be light”—everyone knows that. But God did not specify what color light, and this would eventually prove problematic.

In the age of the LED light bulb, consumers have an unfathomable range of lighting options. This has, perversely, made the task of pleasantly illuminating our homes harder, not easier. The culprit is not LED technology per se, but the bafflingly unhelpful way in which LED bulbs are labeled.

Walk into a well-stocked hardware store, and you will find two main types of bulbs to choose from: “soft white” and “daylight.” (Let’s ignore the existence of Wi-Fi-enabled smart bulbs, which are a solution in search of a problem.) Soft white sounds like it will be the whiter of the two, when in fact it is the more golden option. Daylight sounds like it should be warm and natural; it is instead cold and ugly. The confusing nomenclature has led an untold number of people astray, condemning them to harsh lighting that makes everything in a home, including its residents, less attractive.

[Read: The shopping method that isn’t going anywhere]

For about 99 percent of human history, all artificial light was incandescent, meaning the by-product of heating something to the point that it emits visible radiation. First came fire; then oil lamps, candles, and gaslight; and, finally, Thomas Edison’s incandescent bulb, which operates by heating a filament until it glows. The light produced by an incandescent bulb has a yellow-orange color to it, which we accordingly describe as “warm.” In John Updike’s 1960 novel, Rabbit, Run, Harry Angstrom looks through his neighbors’ windows at dusk and sees, past the pale glow of their black-and-white televisions, “the warm bulbs burning in kitchens, like fires at the backs of caves.”

Incandescent lighting, however, is inefficient: It literally generates more heat than light. This is why budget-conscious institutional settings have long tended to use fluorescent light, which looks awful but uses much less energy. And it is why Congress passed legislation in 2007 mandating the phaseout of incandescent bulbs in favor of LEDs, which use even less. (Donald Trump rolled back that mandate, and then Joe Biden unrolled it; in his second term, Trump is all but assured to un-unroll it.) An LED light works under a wholly different principle from an incandescent one. Instead of heating a filament to the point where light is produced as a by-product, LEDs send electricity through a semiconductor in a way that causes energy to be released as visible photons.

“The first generation of LED lights were just heinous,” Bevil Conway, an artist and a neuroscientist who specializes in color perception, told me. The bulbs emitted a harsh blue-white light by default, creating a terrible first impression for the technology. But the industry has figured out how to “tune” LEDs to generate essentially any color or shade, including something very close to the warm yellow-white of a classic bulb. LEDs still have their share of issues—as I write this, the light in my apartment’s entryway is flickering erratically, as if haunted—but they can glow as warmly as the incandescents of old, while lasting much longer and using much less energy.

If, that is, you can figure out which one to buy.

LED light bulbs are not generally labeled as “warm” or “cool”; that would be too easy. That information is typically buried in the fine print on the side or back of the box. Instead, they have those perplexing labels—remember, “daylight” is cool (despite sounding sunny); “soft white” is warm (despite sounding pale)—and a color temperature, which is measured on the Kelvin scale. You might intuitively think that a higher Kelvin number corresponds to warmer light, but listening to your intuition would be a mistake. In fact, higher-energy light appears cooler. The “soft white” label generally corresponds to 2,700 degrees Kelvin light, while “daylight” is usually applied to 5,000 degrees Kelvin.

What we have here is a classic case of marketing that makes sense to the people selling the product, but not to the people buying it. Indirect natural daylight is, technically, pretty blue. (Perhaps you are familiar with the sky.) When the light-bulb industry labels its 5,000-Kelvin bulbs “daylight,” it’s trying to helpfully indicate that you’re getting a blue light—never mind the fact that a dinky white light bulb does not actually approximate the feeling of sunlight. As for soft white, that “goes back to the incandescent era, where the light emitted from your standard household [bulb] was marketed as ‘soft white light,’” Tasha Campbell, a senior product marketing manager at Signify, which sells Philips-brand light bulbs, told me.

Cold white might have its uses—interrogations, morgues—but the home is not one of them. If you live in an urban area, you can see what I mean by walking around after dark and looking at the windows of an apartment building. If your neighborhood is like mine, most will emit a cozy, warm glow, like fires at the backs of caves. But a troubling share—perhaps one in 10, or one in five—will instead emit a grim, sickly pallor. Those are the daylight apartments.

Bizarrely, some of these apartments are inhabited by people who were not tricked into purchasing terrible lighting, but actively chose it. These are the victims of an extensive body of online propaganda. One popular theory holds that daylight bulbs have a special capacity to help you focus on what you’re doing. “Daylight bulbs are perfect for areas where specific work or detail-oriented tasks are performed,” advises The Spruce, in an example typical of the genre. “These rooms include kitchens, offices, and basements. Bathrooms may also be a good place for daylight bulbs, providing ample light for getting ready.”

The implication is that, until LEDs were invented, everyone was fumbling around in dangerously warm light, unable to chop an onion without losing a finger or read a book without going blind from eye strain. This is preposterous. High-quality cool light can have some advantages for rendering color and detail, which is why it might make sense for, say, an art museum. But if Marcel Proust could write In Search of Lost Time by incandescent lamp, you don’t need 5,000 Kelvins to write an email.

[M. Nolan Gray: Why dining rooms are disappearing from American homes]

A related theory, popular within the lighting industry, holds that daylight bulbs are “energizing.” A video on the Philips website, for example, says, “Use ‘daylight’ to create a bright, energizing setting for improved concentration.” There’s a kernel of plausibility here. Manuel Spitschan, a professor at the Technical University of Munich who has studied the effects that different-color temperatures have on humans, told me that light suppresses the pineal gland’s production of melatonin, the hormone that tells our brains it’s time to get sleepy, and that blue light suppresses it more than yellow light. The daylight-bulb theory is that cool artificial light will mimic the sun’s “melanomic daylight illuminance” more than warm light will, thus keeping us more alert.

The hitch in this theory is that the pineal gland produces melatonin only when it’s dark out. This means that to the extent that cooler bulbs suppress melatonin, they do so mainly in the time when our bodies are trying to help us get ready for bed, not during business hours. Moreover, Spitschan said that the intensity of light “has a much stronger effect than the color temperature.” When it comes to alertness, very bright beats very white.

Because the world is a big and varied place, I’m willing to believe that some people genuinely prefer a cooler bulb, just as some people presumably prefer Bob Dylan’s most recent albums to his 1960s masterpieces. Good for them, I guess. For everyone else, let there be light—but, for God’s sake, let it be warm.