IXI's autofocusing lenses are almost ready to replace multifocal glasses
engadget.com
engadget.com
> It still needs to obtain the necessary medical certifications in order to sell its glasses and get all the production pieces in place
Oh, ok. I hope they have enough funding to last till the FDA clears them, in 2030 :/
The same organization which allows any snake oil to be marketed as long as they say it’s a “supplement” will hold a pair of glasses up for years, as though there could be a hidden danger to a lens that can change to a second prescription.
https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-docume...
It is also a requirement for international flight operations under ICAO regulations. I’m pretty sure this regulation (or something close to it) is enforced by just about every flight-licensing authority worldwide.
It’s plain good sense and I’m glad it’s in there. A plane cannot pull over to the side of the highway while the pilot fumbles around trying to dig his glasses out from under the seat :)
(As a side note, this rule isn’t just for dropped spectacles: there have been cases where they literally get sucked out of the airplane if a cockpit window fails or where a bird strike causing facial injuries also damages the pilots glasses).
Either failure mode would be dangerous while driving because you need to be able to read your dash.
As for the gas gauge, the trick is to reset the local odometer at every fillup, and you'll have an indication of the remaining fuel. Some older cars don't even have a fuel gauge, they just have a lamp that glows when it gets low.
If you want to talk specifics, you’re supposed to be able to see your speed and how your car is performing. You should be prepared for contingencies, like your temperature changing or a yellow/red warning on the dash. You may need to deal with a problem in the car, like grabbing something that could slide under the pedals.
The same goes for farsighted driving. Yes, in most cases you could just follow traffic and you wouldn’t need to read street signs or look at traffic a mile ahead. But you need to be prepared for unexpected situations, and you’ll generally do worse just mentally managing your reduced vision.
I’ve driven without my glasses and tested an unexpectedly bad trial prescription in a car, if it matters.
Also, lots of older people get cataract surgery and can be perpetually farsighted (distance iol chosen)
Even if a person would be compliant, if they wore this most of the time, they wouldn't be accustomed to the varifocal lenses while driving, guaranteeing that whatever other solution than these autofocusing lenses they select for driving, they won't be adapted to them whenever they drive.
There are plenty of FDA-approved drugs that should not be taken while operating a motor vehicle.
That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.
In both cases enforcement is reactive and happens after an accident has already happened.
Imagine you're driving with regular glasses and one tiny screw gives way and they fall off. Imagine you rub your eyes and your contact falls out. Those can't be 100% ruled out either.
But anyway, the FDA imposing a half decade of delays on this will do zero to prevent that from happening. The article says when unpowered they revert to being regular glasses for the main prescription. So the main reason they could glitch out like you suggest would be a software bug. After approval, a future software update could still introduce that bug anyway. So either the FDA has to find a way to review every software patch with perfect bug-detection abilities, or they are useless here and just wasting our money pretending to regulate things without adding any value.
Note that I'm not saying they have no role -- though I would say they do seem to be the worst in the first world at their actually needed job of balancing risk and access in the 'actual medications' department.
“This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-docume...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
> A qualified health claim is supported by less scientific evidence than an authorized health claim. FDA requires that qualified claims be accompanied by a disclaimer that explains the level of the scientific evidence supporting the relationship.
> Unlike authorized health claims, FDA does not issue regulations for qualified health claims.
That does seem to indicate supplement manufacturers have broad latitude to make claims provided they are disclosed as such.
It may not be the FDA's fault that their authority can be so easily evaded, but it doesn't change the fact that the FDA is a joke.
Important to note, of course, that this only works for people with normal binocular vision -- but that's the majority of customers.
Unfortunately I don't have presbyopia at all (my surgery still left me myopic) and my inability to change focus distance is drastically more severe than what happens naturally with aging. This first generation of IXI glasses won't be useful to me.
But I really, really want something like it.
Multifocal contacts are probably not a good long-term fit for those same reasons, and there's the same problem with progressive lenses in glasses. Old-school bifocals are okay, but limited in the usual way.
I have monovision contacts and they work pretty well for me, though mid-tier (e.g. desk computer) work requires special glasses.
I'm a -20, so small differences really magnify.
I might be able to stretch it now, but I'm coming up on my presbyopia years, so I'm not sure it's worth the money if I'm only going to get a few years of stability.
At this point, I'm hoping I take after my mother and get some really early cataracts because then I can just pay for the lens and the insertion/replacement will be covered.
If you can afford it, I would go for it, though. Personally, even for people who are candidates for PRK, LASIK, etc. I think ICL is still worth considering because it has some benefits. Less risk of dry eye and the ability to change the lens if your prescription changes. Longer recovery period, though.
Ophthalmologists will bring their newer assistants in to look at my eyes to see what a severe myope looks like. I got contacts at age eight, so they also use me to show off what a scrupulous contact user’s eyes look like after >40 years. I’m a physician myself, so I’m happy to oblige - some things you can’t understand until you see them.
For the most part, it's...fine. Insurance has no idea what to do with me and that's frustrating, though. Somehow, I have eyes this bad without any associated pathology, and companies don't understand that the needs that such severe myopia presents on its own. I wear custom made RGPs; they can custom make softs but they're horrific (or at least they were 13 years ago when I gave up on them).
Isn't it hilarious every time you go to a new eye doctor? It's actually really cute: I like watching them get all giddy. They get so excited when they can't use the machines (a lot of them will only go up to a -15) and have to measure my RX manually. You can just see how they're like 'oh my God, I learned about this in school!'
Now I usually look for practices that work with keratoconus patients. They usually have practice with strange prescriptions and unusual contact fittings.
I find them very handy, as my progressive lenses are rather limited for closeup work.
> the technology [...] can be separated into two parts. First [...]
is the part that tracks eye movements and what they are focusing on.
The second part is never written. There is a hint later on:
> [the] prototype lenses, made up of layers of liquid crystal and a transparent ITO (indium tin oxide) conductive layer. This combination is still incredibly thin, and it was amazing to watch the layers switch almost instantly into a prescription lens
I'll try my best to explain, according to what I understand:
An electric field can re-orientate the liquid crystal molecules, which changes the speed of light within the liquid crystal, and thereby changes the liquid crystal's refractive index.
This changes the angle of light as it passes from other material (such as air or plastic or glass) into the liquid crystal, and that change of angle changes the focal point of the light ray.
That effect provides the ability to focus incoming light, controlled by electricity.
That's probably not exactly right, but it's better than the explanation in the original story, which is non-existent and also has a very confused reference to ITO (indium tin oxide), like you've noticed.
So the finish company's eyeglasses didn't fit a "British" face?
Fun story about this problem. When I was a kid I was a nationally-ranked swimmer. Almost everyone who could wore "Swedish" racing goggles aka swedes. These are very simple and tiny goggles, just a plastic cup that fits on, almost within, your eye socket. Your eyebrow normally sits over the top of the goggle, holding it onto your face. (I could swim slowly without the strap.) They are amazing, by far the best racing goggles out there. No foam to peal. Small enough not to fall off during a dive. And held together with string so you can adjust them perfectly to your face. They were also dirt cheap. But without any soft parts they are unforgiving to the point of racism. If your skull is even a slightly different shape than the Nordic/Viking/Swedish ideal, the goggles will not sit on your eye socket properly. On Asian people they tend to leak unless you tighten them painfully. On many black people they tend to rotate and climb into the eye socket. To nobody's surprise, they have kept the "Swedish" name because, in this case, any racial connotation is very appropriate.
https://malmsten.com/en/products/p/swim-goggles/swedish-gogg... https://alltides.com/products/lunettes-de-natation-swedish-b...
(If you buy these, ditch the stock straps. Nobody uses them because they rot/age very quickly. Use silicon string.)
Going out foraging and being able to identify plants and fungi by simply resting my vision on something for a pause is the sci Fi tech I actually want
Make it love2d where humans and building are replaced by pixel art.
Buying lenses is often the most expensive part, especially for those with astigmatism, second only to the frames themselves, which is another racket altogether.
I've been thinking about the existence of bifocals and how they aren't ideal as I come to terms with the inconvenience of removing my glasses and putting them back on repeatedly as I task switch. This sounds pretty great and I hope it's not smoke and mirrors (given enough time, science fiction tends to become reality, so I'm hopeful).
I didn't really want to get bifocals because it's what old people wear ;-). But it's so much better with them.
The glasses place (CostCo Optical) guy was kind of a jerk about it, all but saying "you're going to wreck your car if you use these for anything but at your desk", but I just "yeah, yeah"ed him, I like my prescription dialed back a bit from max power for day-to-day use.
If you can afford it, maybe give them a try? Zenni and other onlines might make them affordable enough to just try?
Of course, being a programmer I have another pair of glasses just for monitors. If your work doesn't involve reading a lot maybe you can get away with just progressives, but this is HN so not likely.
(I'm aware of the multifocal glasses mentioned in the article; they didn't work well for me.)
I'm nearsighted, myself - so for near vision, I need zero prescription at the moment. (We'll see how that changes in a deacde, I guess.)
I typically have a pair of mild readers that I leave on the desk and carry a pair of the stronger ones around for reading my phone, restaurant menus, etc.
Note if you wear glasses you can "focus" them to some extent by sliding them up and down your nose.
This cannot materialize quickly enough.