Not necessarily, on OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs) a light that's turned off is using less power because the pixels the lamp is displayed on (and the ones around it too) are dimmer.
Actually, the pixels go completely black and do not consume any electricity at all in that state.
You might be thinking of early OLEDs, which had to stay on at all times to prevent blur/smearing. But panel manufacturers solved that problem a few years ago. Don't remember exactly when the change happened, but I remember first seeing true black OLEDs sometime around 2017/2018.
OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs)
Probably not for most people, due to cost. More realistic for portable devices where battery saving is a thing, as it doesn't seem like there's much mainstream push for OLED (or similar equivalent) monitors that aren't top-end (on newegg, I could only find 240Hz options).
That and often search results are for other panel technologies (IPS/TN/VA). Lower spec stuff seems to exist but you really gotta scrape the bottom of the barrel (portable monitors) to find some niche product.
Did you know that if we took all the rhinos left on the planet, put them in a rocket ship and launched it towards the sun, the would travel 91.511 million mi, and die along the way?
Akshually we currently have no rocket with enough power to launch that much mass towards the Sun. People always assume because the Sun has a lot of gravity, stuff moves toward it automatically. But when launching from Earth that's not the case. Earth is in orbit around the Sun, in order to get to the Sun you need to lose all that energy. Since rhino's are heavy af you'd need a mighty rocket indeed.
We could with some effort maybe launch one small rhino, say 600-700kg towards the Sun. And it requires some fancy ass orbital mechanics. So it would travel way more than 91.511 million miles before ending up in the Sun. This rhino would probably not survive the launch, which is just as well given its destination and travel time.
While getting a rocket or probe to hit the sun smack in the middle sounds hard to do, you can get obliterated by it with much less delta-v.
You need to get to the Earth's escape velocity and just cleverly align the angle of escape so that you get an eccentric enough heliocentric orbit that you'd end up some 6 million kms close to the sun. Anything closer than that is literally overkill.
The lamp is rendered by small electric lights, be it LEDs or LCD. CRTs are in a bit of an grey area. But you can absolutely use a monitor as a light source by itself .
Do they use more than dark places in video games? Like if you are in dark room in the game, and you turn on a lamp in the game, are you using more electricity?
My guess is no but I am not a programmer or electrician nor a physicist.
if you have an oled display, then if a video game is brighter it costs more energy because the LEDs turn on more.
if have an lcd display, there's a backlight that always has the same brightness and crystals blocking the light, which makes the image. meaning a brighter scene doesn't take more power, since the backlight doesn't use more energy.
On an LCD display, the backlight is always on but the crystals need power to align and let the backlight through.
A full white screen would in theory use more electricity than a full black screen. How much more, I don't actually know but I would like to know more info in it.
If the light is not dynamic at all, no. If it has stuff like dynamic shadows it will require more processing power to render frames than if the light was off, which probably makes the CPU/GPU draw slightly more power
The GPU renders the map no matter if there is lighting baked in our not. It's exactly the same operation. And depending on your display tech, brighter pixels might actually use slightly less energy.