I was indeed entertained with your imperative instructions to move the file, which is also slightly more annoying if your file is not at the top level!
3,321 karma · joined October 29, 2014
The main drawback of all the keypresses you see is that Vim is an imperative editor: You have to tell Vim how to edit text by glueing together lots of small commands.* IDEs are declarative editors, you say "rename this variable" and they do it.
* Ask your local Vim nerd to rename the file they're editing. It will be entertaining!
$99/month is pure corruption, and they get away with it because insurance can help cover it.
In healthcare, "Economies of scale don’t lower prices", and "prices rise to what the market will bear" - An American Sickness. Very much what you're seeing here for this price tag.
I think there's an uncomparable difference between between being wrong in your thoughts, vs openly lecturing others about what you're wrong about.
I personally appreciate the reality check that not everything these famous people think is worth writing down nor sharing.
It's legitimately disgusting that bidets aren't common America. Such unsanity bathroom practices.
I also wish that eye doctors knew about the existing evidence. I wish that all opthamologists knew how emmetropization worked, I wish all lenses were peripheral defocused, and I wish more eye doctors prescribed low dose atropine to children, because the evidence is clear. And I sincerely hope that more eye doctors get sued for not using these tools in their practice. Ignoring science based evidence of myopia control in a field where you only need to know about 20 things is negligence.
Proving axial elongation is reversible is not done by a n=1 pet theory forum post measured in a home lab by someone who doesn't know what their choroid is. These forums are filled with people with mild myopia, not high myopes, who are "just starting my journey!" or "I had a small correction and I plateaued!" but are still zealously telling everyone else how to reduce their myopia. n=1 is fine for Reddit tier evidence, but without studies, it doesn't matter.
There is no known way to reverse this growth process. The only scientifically proven intervention for reducing myopia is surgery. There is no concrete evidence of for any other intervention, nor is there any other known mechanism for causing the eye to reshape itself to reduce axial elongation. For the eye to become truly less elongated, your body has to break down the extra cells in the eye and cause reshaping. An example of this is wound healing: your body breaks down the ECM with TMP activation. We know how the *opposite* works, the eye grows in response to overfocus to find focus. When too much is in focus in your peripheral vision (near work, holding things close to your face), the eye thinks it's over-focusing, and physically grows to find focus. Near work is the issue. Outdoor light probably isn't the issue, it's probably because when you're outside, you're not doing near work.
For those who do experience improvements, it's not from changes to the cellular structure of the eye. There are multiple temporary known mechanisms for your eye changing focus. One of them is the thickness of the choroid, a tissue layer in the back of the eye. Another is possibly muscular, your axial elongation is known to show variable diopters during the day (maybe +-0.25 but I don't know the actual variance). Studies do show fast-acting axial elongation reduction (minutes to hours) in response to defocus, but this is obviously not from the eye reshaping itself, so this is obviously not reversing myopia, this is just changing temporary variables in the eye. For the majority of people who report "reversing" myopia, it is usually a negligible change (2 diopters) which is easily explainable with these mechanisms, rather than the false belief it's actually changing the elongated eye shape. Ortho-K is another known temporary / superficial intervention.
The burden of proof of truly changing the axial elongation and fundamental structure of the eye cells is on you, and on the EndMyopia quacks. There are no studies that demonstrate significant diopter changes that would demonstrate the eye is reshaping itself to actually reverse myopia. You are welcome to find the studies on the Bates method and wearing undercorrected lenses yourself, they don't work and possibly make things worse.
An arbitrary "correction" of two diopters is within the margin of error of the possibility of initial overcorrection, choroid changes, inherent small variability in eye tests, and tricking yourself into believing your vision is better than it is. -3 is trivially myopic, but if you do manage a 4 diopter change, verified by an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist, then you would be a medical miracle and worthy of multiple case studies. Get on it if that's the case!
How do minor correction improvements anecdotally reported track choroidal thickness? Oh, they don't?
I've installed your Chrome extension and I'm eager to learn more. It's too late for my vision, but it's still getting worse for me in middle age, so I'm very interested in the state of the art based in real science.
The author seems confused - confusing issues with EHR system UX and data entry and data fidelity and interoperability itself.
Ruby gets a lot of criticism for embracing magic and indirection ("Ruby, the bad parts of Perl"). It has some good parts (no function colors, for example), but the ecosystem is the biggest problem by promoting magic. method_missing is not a good part of Ruby, it's a very bad part that you should only use if you know it's bad _and_ you know you still have to use it. I wish all tutorials would say this. "You can do this with Ruby, but don't, because your coworkers debugging an outage for an hour will hate you once they find out the bug is caused by method_missing".