3 ms·

Every time I hear how much Lasik surgery has improved, I'm gladder I haven't let those damned lasers anywhere near my eyes. :-) For the hackernews spin, this t

by zellyn 13y ago

Every time I hear how much Lasik surgery has improved, I'm gladder I haven't let those damned lasers anywhere near my eyes. :-) For the hackernews spin, this trick works for software too - I learned it at my first job, where each client had a different stack and we had to evaluate lots of enterprisey vendors: look at the improvements. The same thing that makes vendors tell you their software will make you toast and find you dates makes them unable to resist crowing about the improvements from version to version. If you're choosing between two identical-looking products, go with the one whose recent release notes have things like "Fix problems when mixing Russian and Right-to-left scripts on EBCDIC systems" rather than, "Now includes support for backups!"

nether 13y ago
I'm glad I bit the bullet and got lasik last year. It beats the nonzero risk of eye infection every time I touch my eyes with contact lenses. These problems can cause vision loss and sometimes require eye removal: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20061010/lasik-surgery-safer-than-contacts http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20061010/lasik-surgery-...
- to3m 13y ago
  I have some solid lenses made out of plastic, held in front of my eyes. "Non-contact Lenses", I suppose you'd call them. Or perhaps, "binocularettes"? Anyway, they're sort of like monocles, but attached to a little frame that fits around my ears and above my nose, keeping the lenses in place. A minor hassle but you soon get used to it. Ask me on my death bed to be sure - but I'm pretty sure that the risk of eye removal from my non-contact lenses is pretty low. I much prefer it to the creaky old technology of actually putting things in your eye. Progress! (I used to have some fashioned from pure glass, and they were pretty decent - much more resistant to scratches - but obviously glass comes with a risk of breakage and therefore shards of glass in your eyes. I have to admit that such a thing never actually happened while I had them, though.)
  - rjsw 13y ago
    I mostly use the same "non-contact lenses" as you but have also used contact lenses for 35 years and not needed to have an eye removed. Deliberately putting things in your eye does have one advantage, you can easily fish out any bits of grit that get in there by accident.

by zellyn 13y ago

nether 13y ago

I'm glad I bit the bullet and got lasik last year. It beats the nonzero risk of eye infection every time I touch my eyes with contact lenses. These problems can cause vision loss and sometimes require eye removal: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20061010/lasik-surgery-safer-than-contacts http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20061010/lasik-surgery-...

to3m 13y ago
I have some solid lenses made out of plastic, held in front of my eyes. "Non-contact Lenses", I suppose you'd call them. Or perhaps, "binocularettes"? Anyway, they're sort of like monocles, but attached to a little frame that fits around my ears and above my nose, keeping the lenses in place. A minor hassle but you soon get used to it. Ask me on my death bed to be sure - but I'm pretty sure that the risk of eye removal from my non-contact lenses is pretty low. I much prefer it to the creaky old technology of actually putting things in your eye. Progress! (I used to have some fashioned from pure glass, and they were pretty decent - much more resistant to scratches - but obviously glass comes with a risk of breakage and therefore shards of glass in your eyes. I have to admit that such a thing never actually happened while I had them, though.)
- rjsw 13y ago
  I mostly use the same "non-contact lenses" as you but have also used contact lenses for 35 years and not needed to have an eye removed. Deliberately putting things in your eye does have one advantage, you can easily fish out any bits of grit that get in there by accident.