3 ms·
I know, I though it might a very expensive but precise way to measure that with time or new tech could become afrodable.
by alfonsodev 7y ago
I know, I though it might a very expensive but precise way to measure that with time or new tech could become afrodable.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> I know, I though it might a very expensive but precise way to measure that with time or new tech could become afrodable. No it's imprecise - again that's a key point of the article. The author finds that there's a lot of variance in the measurements obtained.
- alfonsodev 7y agoMaybe it's the way I worded it, but I'm not debating the point of the author, sometimes in HN there are people that know more, or have more recent information than the authors of what is posted here.
- criddell 7y agoI don't see why the entire process couldn't be automated. A machine could ask me "which is better A or B or are they the same?" There are other parts of the exam that are more related to eye health, but I don't see why they vision prescription process and the eye exam have to be combined. How many people that don't wear glasses ever get their eyes examined?
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago"Which is better?" is the subjectivity people are hoping can be eliminated, the patient's, not the examiner's. This is an interesting black-box problem, I suppose it's possible that with the examination of enough eyes a system could suggest corrections, but I am skeptical.