I find it hard to believe that General Motors has fallen off this sharply. In my view, their supposed "successes" were largely an illusion created by McLaren struggling with a subpar car and Ferrari simply being uncompetitive. They didn't actually outpace the field by such a massive margin; they just benefited from McLaren's decline, which isn't quite the same thing as what Ferrari has pulled off in recent years. Regardless, watching how things shake out over the next few races should be quite telling.
That’s really more of a conversation for the Hardware sub 😁
P.S. Give the monitor properties a look—just right-click on your desktop, hit properties, and you should find it there... set it to 100 MHz if you're running a CRT, or stick to 75 MHz if you've got an LCD
I didn't say the issue was limited strictly to the flicker rate; how far you sit from the screen makes a massive difference. While a low refresh rate can certainly trigger a headache, it isn't typically the culprit behind blurry vision—though I wasn't making that assumption. I figured anyone using a computer professionally would already be well aware that these kinds of settings need to be optimized for long-term health.
I’ll try to keep this brief and skip the unnecessary fluff this time : ))
Computers don't actually damage your eyes. There isn't a single pair of glasses out there that offers any real benefit while you're working at a desk—unless we're talking about presbyopia, which basically just means anyone over 43, the standard American age demographic, or cases involving exo- or esophoria.
The real issue stems from a low blink rate; it's a proven fact that people blink significantly less when staring at a screen. Combine that with sitting too close to the monitor, and you have a recipe for disaster. First, it dries out the cornea and disrupts its function. To put it bluntly, the eye isn't getting enough oxygen because the moisture layer is compromised. Since there are no veins or capillaries in the optical zone, oxygen delivery depends entirely on external moisture provided by tears (specifically via the sodium-potassium pump, a concept quite central to ophthalmology). That dryness is what leads to blurred vision.
The second culprit is poor posture and proximity. If you're sitting too close, your eyes have to work harder to accommodate the image, requiring much more effort to focus. It doesn't matter if you do it for five minutes, but after several hours? I’d argue that over the long term, it causes a sort of spasm in the ciliary muscle, leading to those common complaints of failing eyesight. Ideally, you want to maintain a distance of about 28 to 31 inches from your monitor.
Other theories floating around are about as credible as research suggesting we can find dietary sugars sitting in the anterior chamber of the eye—which would imply myopia is caused by your diet. While interesting, that field of study is still in its infancy, and frankly, I think we know far too little to take such claims seriously just yet.
So, there it is. Don't mind me if my phrasing isn't perfectly polished; I never really mastered the nuances of formal academic prose anyway.
Here’s my attempt at contributing—I’ll try to keep it brief and avoid getting bogged down in unnecessary details.
Sleeping lenses can be an effective way to correct your vision—but I want to emphasize that "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It isn't a universal fix. Honestly, asking for someone else's experience is a bit like asking for medical advice based on a neighbor's success story; it might help you feel better, but it doesn't actually tell you if the treatment will work for your specific biology. The effectiveness depends entirely on your unique ocular profile: the specific type of correction required, the thickness of your cornea, and several other physiological variables that play a much larger role than most people realize. Every eye is its own unique puzzle.
Look, let's be clear about what we're dealing with here: these lenses aren't some magic wand that resets your vision to zero permanently. What you're actually seeing is just a temporary shift in cell positioning. Depending on how long you have them in, those cells tend to migrate back to their original spots after a day or two. It’s a temporary adjustment, nothing more.
The real upside to this approach is that you aren't wearing contacts during the day. You don't have to deal with that constant anxiety about dust or debris getting trapped behind the lens, and you can finally say goodbye to that nagging sensation of dry eyes.
That correction sounds like an absolute steal for them, so I honestly think it’s worth a shot—provided you can actually get a trial pair first. I really hope that’s how they handle things here in the States. One thing, though: don't agree to anything unless they measure you using a corneal topographer. A standard keratometer just isn't precise enough for this kind of work. It’s always the same story: they only ever push materials with a high DK value, which basically means you're just letting massive amounts of oxygen leak through.
P.S. Jadesailor14, can you actually correct for minor astigmatism and nearsightedness if the prescription tops out at -4.00?
P.S. Neovascularization—that pesky growth of new capillaries triggered by oxygen deprivation—is actually a solved issue at this point. A much more significant concern would be the formation of vacuoles or even edema (I think that’s the correct term in English). 🙂 )
Sarah James4 said:So what is that supposed to mean? And what if it’s located in Asia?
It seems like several people here have thrown out this exact same argument, yet nobody has actually bothered to explain the logic behind it.😕
Honestly, it feels like some of you don't even grasp what the EEC was all about...
One of the fundamental requirements for joining the European Union is being a European nation. Otherwise, the name itself becomes a complete absurdity...
boldhound8 said:Martin just wiped my hard drive and I'm stuck with nothing but Windows installed. Does anyone have a recommendation for the best software out there?
Thanks,
Honestly, go back to DOS. It’s more stable than Windows and significantly more efficient.👍
Look, here’s the plan: I’m going to dig into the specifics first. Once I have a better handle on the actual options, the pricing, where to source everything, and just how reliable these solutions really are, I’ll get back to you. I’d much rather do my homework than come at you with half-baked information that might be more myth than reality. A close colleague of mine is based here in New York City, just like I am, so tracking him down isn't exactly easy—but it’s possible there are comparable avenues available right here in the States.
I’ll touch base with you soon.
boldeagle
P.S. If you scroll down to the bottom of this page and click the "Treatment" link, you'll find the details regarding what I was talking about. Take a look so you can see exactly what we're dealing with.
Alright, I managed to dig up this link for you. Give it a read and see if it hits the mark. It’s in Mexican, unfortunately—I couldn't find anything else in English that was quite as detailed. My apologies for the language barrier.
Based on what you’ve shared here, my best guess is that you're dealing with tinnitus. Now, I’m not a doctor—I’m just talking to a colleague of mine—but from what I understand, there isn't just one single cause. It’s frequently triggered by high stress levels. Think of it like this: those tiny hair cells in your inner ear are already under a certain amount of physiological tension, and if your stress hits a breaking point, that tension can manifest as that constant ringing. By the way, there are actually devices out there that use sound wave therapy to help neutralize the noise. It’s far from a pleasant experience, but it supposedly helps. At least, that's the word on the street. You should definitely do some digging online to learn more, but feel free to hit me up if you have any questions about the ocean. 🙂
Casey Palmer5 said:The massive downside to soft lenses, especially the daily disposables, is how easily they pick up various infections and how difficult they can be to keep truly sterile.
Look, just switch to rigid lenses. All those disposable gimmicks are bad by design. Don't gamble with your eyes. You have no idea how quickly you could end up losing your sight. If you need to, just go back to glasses... but don't play games with your vision!!
Ugh, I honestly think you don't have a clue what you're talking about here. No offense intended, it’s just the first honest thought that popped into my head while reading your attempt at fear-mongering.
I'm kidding, mostly, but trust me—it isn't quite that catastrophic with soft lenses, particularly dailies since they're worn for such a short window. For someone to actually lose their sight, a perfect storm of terrible circumstances would have to occur; I don't even want to start listing all the potential complications. As for whether rigid lenses are better, I partially agree with your point, but that has nothing to do with infection risks or going blind.
What exactly is wisdom? I’m honestly not sure. Right now, the only thing that comes to mind is that nagging, humbling realization of just how little I actually know...
Since I work as an Ophthalmologist and Contact lens specialist—as wiredfox72 put it, I wasn't familiar with that specific phrasing, so thanks for the lesson—I'm currently practicing here in the Netherlands. Because of that, I might occasionally stumble over an American term for something, though I'm hoping that won't happen too often; I haven't felt that alienated from the culture just yet. 🙂
I’ve asked you before how strong your cylinder prescription is, but since you didn't know, it’s worth noting that this could be a deciding factor in which type of lenses you choose to wear. If the cylinder is located on the cornea, you can correct it with either hard or soft lenses. However, if the cylinder is in the lens itself, hard lenses aren't really an option. At least, they aren't in standard practice; I'm somewhat familiar with how Ophthalmologists and Contact lens specialists operate in America. Furthermore, if your cylinder strength exceeds your spherical correction, you’ll most likely have to go with hard lenses; soft ones aren't always as successful in those specific cases.
Beyond the technicalities, perhaps the most critical factor for anyone considering contact lenses is motivation: do you actually *want* to wear them? What is driving this decision, and what are your expectations? Lenses require significantly more maintenance and "sacrifice" than glasses; even just the upkeep is a much larger undertaking. Being irresponsible with this can lead to permanent consequences.
Provided both are corrected properly, you won't actually see better with lenses than you do with glasses. In fact, theoretically, there's a higher chance that with certain soft toric lenses, your vision might even be slightly worse. It depends on several variables.
Regardless of your choice, you need to keep a pair of glasses on hand. If you deal with inflammation or any other complications, you simply cannot wear the lenses. It's also wise not to pop them in first thing in the morning; your eyes need to breathe and take in oxygen from the environment, since they don't get a direct oxygen supply through the blood. Giving them that window of time is always a good idea. And at night, once the lenses are out... reach for the glasses.
I'll try to touch upon a few other posts to clear up some common misconceptions.
Soft lenses can serve as a replacement for glasses—and for most people, they are. Of course, eyes can be 🙂 totally screwed over by them, but that's a topic unto itself; there are too many potential complications for me to dive into that right now. Generally speaking, proper maintenance and regular replacement are the solutions.
Soft lenses allow for some oxygen permeability depending on their water content—usually ranging from 38% to 50% or 70%. The principle remains the same: the higher the water content, the greater the oxygen permeability, but they also tend to get dirty faster. Permeability has nothing to do with bacteria; it's about the porosity of the lens, if you catch my drift. A soft lens functions like a sponge; it absorbs water and holds its shape, but it also easily traps bacteria. There are various types available, from dailies to annuals. The shorter the wear cycle, the lower the risk of contamination, but naturally, the price goes up. Monthly lenses are the standard here. Personally, I wouldn't use anything longer than six-month lenses. Hard lenses don't suffer from this issue.
The prescription for glasses and lenses can differ. Lenses often have a slightly lower negative value compared to glasses, meaning they aren't stronger or weaker! Roughly speaking, you add about 0.25 for every 3 diopters. In the case of hard lenses that correct for astigmatism using tear film, the cylinder can sometimes be ignored if it doesn't exceed 2 diopters.
Hard lenses do not stop your prescription from progressing! They might influence the curvature of the eye, but once you stop wearing them, it returns to its baseline. This applies to the cylinder, which usually reappears at the same value after you stop wearing them—though that isn't a absolute rule; it depends on many factors. In some younger patients, they can occasionally stabilize the strength to a small degree.
So, here is my final takeaway: if you want to wear lenses, I would recommend HP—gas-permeable hard lenses. They carry a lower risk of complications, are far cheaper than soft lenses, and often provide superior optical results for astigmatism. If you decide on glasses instead, I don't think I have much left to add that you don't already know.
I I should probably add that your situation is pretty unique; at the end of the day, your decision is going to hinge on a whole cocktail of different factors. I didn't dive deep into every single issue because, frankly, there's no point writing a damn dissertation on it here. But if anything else catches your eye, just ask—I'm more than happy to weigh in.
Anyway, hoping this at least offered some value. Good luck with everything, and if you end up pulling the trigger on a decision, let us know how it goes.
I’ve been wearing glasses since I was five years old, and—surprise, surprise—I finally managed to break them. My prescription is roughly -0.75, plus some astigmatism.
Now, purely for aesthetic reasons, I’m considering making the switch to contact lenses. Is it worth it? I’ve never worn contacts in my life, so I’m completely in the dark regarding the process—how they feel, how long they last, the cost, the cleaning, the maintenance... the whole nine yards.
That said, I don't skimp on my gear (think high-end titanium frames from a designer brand or premium lenses with advanced anti-reflective coatings), so should I be looking for a specific manufacturer? I’d appreciate any insights or suggestions you might have; this is a big decision for me. If you have any helpful links, please send them my way. 🙂 Thanks!
Just how strong is that astigmatism? Is it centered on the cornea or the lens? And honestly, how much discipline do you actually have to stick with a daily routine? Those are just the starting questions... Once I have those answers, I can give you some more practical advice.
I don't know, I can't help but feel there's some merit to banning these ads—you know, for the sake of public health and protecting kids... In my view, it just feels more organic for top-tier racing teams to be backed by sponsors that aren't peddling vices. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a saint—I smoke too—but does nicotine really belong in the world of sports? To me, this feels like a choice the teams should be making themselves rather than something forced upon them by the EU. Then again, money talks, and let's face it: without that cash flow, nothing moves, not even the wheels on an F1 car. Well, look on the bright side: soon we'll be watching almost every race at 3 or 4 in the morning. At least it'll be quiet and peaceful; the neighbors won't be complaining about the noise. Pure bliss.
I honestly think this forum is going to run dry pretty quickly if we restrict ourselves strictly to discussions centered on philosophy as an academic discipline. There’s already been enough said about those topics; some of the other threads have been dismissed with a certain condescension, though no one has actually proven they hold any less value. Beyond that, there will always be those performers who live for the spotlight. They need their stage, and they’ll keep dancing as long as the lights stay bright and the audience keeps applauding. Then again, maybe deep down, they’d actually welcome the chance for the lights to dim, just so they could finally get some rest.
Refractive Surgery: A Layman’s Guide My professional background involves ocular health, and I work closely with a specialized refractive surgery clinic, so I figured I’d jump in here and offer some clarity. Maybe I can save someone from a few headaches.
Who is a candidate? Those dealing with nearsightedness or farsightedness Astigmatism Must be over 18 Your prescription needs to be stable—meaning your eyes have finished adjusting and your vision isn't fluctuating wildly due to age or minor shifts. No underlying eye diseases Good overall health Realistic expectations about the outcome
The Methods:
LASIK LASEK Lens Implantation IOL, Phakic lenses, Artisan, Nuvita Combinations of the above
If you have specific questions, just ask. There’s no point in me writing a textbook covering every possible surgical combination right out of the gate. Just a heads-up: if you don't meet the criteria, no reputable American clinic is going to touch you with a wand, let alone a laser.
Oh, one more thing: please stop looking for magic drops or pills to "cure" your prescription. Believe me, they don't exist. You can find medication for inflammation or infections, sure, but nothing is going to magically reshape your cornea. Sometimes hard contact lenses can help stabilize a prescription, but that's about it.