81–90 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had low diopter astigmatism and got lazik 6 years ago at 39. I consider it the best decision I've ever made that was just for me. I still have perfect vision, and if it degrades again I will happily get it done again. Just my experience, but I have yet to meet anyone who has regretted it.
Can you really have the procedure done a second time?
Well then. LASIK it is.
The other commenters pointed out that glasses are an option, but I feel like the real thing that is missed in lasik discussions is risk -- there is no risk of ruining your eyes by wearing glasses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks
I looked into this 12 years ago when I was debating whether I should get LASIK, and the risk seemed minuscule. I'm sure odds of a bad outcome have gone down even more in that time.
PFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood, with large numbers of men dying before they couldn't afford reading glasses they would need. (my gf was 1 of 5 surviving from 10 born, with horsedrawn transportation and starvation) all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities un…
I'm certainly thankful we'll have 10 billion people to share that ride with. Misery loves her company.
It's all a monkey paw and we've been standing in place for a century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Bruh we're not going to have glaciers in like 5 years. Do you have a source for that? The predictions I remember are much longer.
Kaczynski-style anti-industrialism doesn't make for good discourse, but neither does Benthamite rah-rah-ism. Our increased material comfort comes at the price of a techno-panopticon and toxic consumerism, or as one astute observer described it, a 'boring dystopia'.
PFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
They were really pretty close. Leaded gas was banned for new model cars in 1985 but didn't stop being used until 1996 - the year of XML! - and asbestos was and is everywhere, the gift that keeps on giving. Popcorn ceiling in a house built in 1980 CA? Probably full of asbestos because grandfathered in. And so on. Just kind of amazing.
PFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The research is ongoing and unclear. The primary reason people are concerned is that the half-life of PFAS in the human body is between 2 and 9 years – so if you're exposed, you're really exposed. There's been a range of studies that have shown possible links with a number of different diseases which is concerning only because the effects of PFAS had been largely unstudied until the last 15 years. But that this point…
Best to avoid 94% of biodegradable straws as well. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg... I hope some research is done on PFAs before it’s too late.
Well then. LASIK it is.
what happened to glasses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just re-shapes your lens via subtraction. you can have it done as many times as your lens has enough material to be molded into the required geometry via removing material.
So how many times is that on average? Naively searching seems to mostly get well SEO'd results from LASIK related companies making claims like "In general, there is no limit on how many LASIK procedures you can get in your lifetime"[0]. Though that is followed by "The thickness of the cornea is one of the main determinations regarding the safety of multiple LASIK surgeries" in the same article which seems to contradi…
Certainly it is a number 0-many
I know an uncle who has had it twice
I am ineligible for the procedure as my farsightedness is too severe when coupled with a thin portion of my cornea
I would guess the first surgery is generally the most severe and the followups require less material removal, but I think your research is probably more detailed than mine at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's "responsible" about putting the breaks on technological progress, when that technological progress has statistically-positive net QALY effects? Let me give a concrete example: what would be "responsible" about doing a 10-year FDA trial to approve a novel anti-cancer therapy, for a cancer that currently has no existing treatment? Even if this novel cancer treatment killed 50% of the people treated, if the rest…
Those people saved by cancer treatments or IV drips should die, for the environment of course(!) This is what they really believe so you can be damn sure they will make you poorer by denying you the luxury of contact lenses. And they'd have a more acceptable excuse of "wear glasses".