meseek #2982

Removed by mod

Like if you have blurry vision, and you don’t wear vision-correcting glasses, does that set off an inevitable downward spiral of degradation of your vision?

Not really. It depends on how bad. But not having good eyesight which leads to blurry vision isn’t a blanket condition, in that, your entire world isn’t just a blur. You can focus on some things (far sighted vs near sighted) and even if you can’t see well close-up, you can still force your eyes in some circumstances to produce better vision if you put in effort. It’s like trying to lift a bag that’s too heavy for you. You may not be able to get it above your head, but maybe you can lift it off the floor if you try hard enough.

What causes an inevitable degradation is more to do with age and how our bodies just fail over time. Headaches and other ailments associated with poor vision are the number one cause for most people to see an optometrist. Your eyes can only handle so much load before it takes a toll. Which should be the red flag for you and your “blurry” glasses.

Closing your eyes is the most ideal because it cuts off sensory information, which saves energy (your sensory and motor cortex are spared or operate with less resources). It’s like lying still vs running a marathon. It requires a lot of energy for your brain to continually process info. And humans are visual creatures. We take vision above all else. If it looks like a duck, but sounds like a sheep and smells like bread, it’s still a duck to us. Which tells you just how much of our brain is carved out for that sense.

Baggage checkers at airports that sit behind the x-ray machine usually lose sharpness after about 30m (which means they can allow potentially dangerous objects onto aircrafts). Attention is super expensive and if you call on someone’s total, undivided attention, that can only be maintained for so long before the brain sort of checks out.

And not it’s not a dumb question.

gila@lemm.see answered your question below regarding simulated blurriness and I added a bit to it if you want to read more.

It is different for simulated blurriness, because simulated blurriness can’t be modulated by your ocular muscles, so they won’t reflexively strain to focus.

You couldn’t really achieve that effect by actually putting any kind of lens in front of your eyes though. That is not a simulation of blurriness, it is actual blurriness.

This is the correct answer. It’s like using an image with depth to work your depth perception: it won’t work because you can’t transition between each layer to bring them into focus. Seamen who stay in submarines for extended periods are prohibited from driving for quite a while when they get back on land because a submarine is too small of an enclosed space and your depth perception crumbles over time when it’s not being used.

Turning your world into a blur will basically cause your eyes to try and hyper focus at all times, unable to do so. This will lead to massive eye strain but also a ton of headaches and other ailments. It is the opposite of relaxation for your body.

Still absolutely terrible for any length of time.

You really don’t care about your eyesight do you… this will absolutely wreck your eyes.

Nope. And it’s less than the cost of actually doing what they are supposed to be doing. This is like driving into a crowd and being given a speeding ticket. Absolutely fucking shameful. But I bet the government officials overseeing the case probably got a nice vacation out of it.

Useless without actually showing what data was used to make this. Also, what does “number of antidepressants” mean exactly? Is the amount someone consumes, or the different brands they take?

For anyone that doesn’t really know, police terrorize aboriginals. Like literally terrorize them. Some of the worst atrocities are committed by police against them.

Congratulations! You have unlocked a new fear: Assassin bugs!!

Rich people don’t buy second hand. These cars are exclusively aimed at rich people. The end.

Wait so carrots don’t make you see better? 😏

Look. I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don’t have to. I have people skill. I’m good at dealing with people. What the hell is wrong with you people!?

I remember our dad always making jello for desert. Always. He went on like a jello tirade for like 3 months. I loved it. My sis loved it. We both loved jello. Then one day he brought it out and I couldn’t eat it anymore. Since that day I’ve probably had jello twice voluntarily and still didn’t like it. It’s been 30 years and I still hate jello lol

I think tax payer dollars are used in this sense:

Ultra rich guy takes all your tax dollars. Spends it on a steak and lobster dinner. Eats their fill and then tosses you the shell and some of the gristle. Then they boast about how tax dollars are helping feed people. While technically true, the lions share doesn’t (rightfully) go to the tax payer but the one that collects it.

That’s how I see taxes working and that’s what every investigation has basically concluded. I don’t know where you live, but in Canada, no government ever has released details on how much it takes in and how much it spends. It operates in a void; a dark pool. Where money goes in and out and no one but them know where those funds are sent. It has basic budgeting details ($50m went to education) but those are general numbers.

Sorry if I don’t have a lot of trust that $5m of that went into some guy’s office because he hated the decor it was so 2013 rather than actual school programs. Moreover, it’s pretty common for crown corporations to get massive raises if they pull in a net positive (something they shouldn’t be doing as they need to operate at a zero profit).

Oh, so you’re familiar with the Bob Loblaw, Law Blog?

It’s Bob. He’s got a budget of $200 a year. He does what he can. We like Bob.

More tax payers dollars at work lmao

I thought there was strict regulation to ensure crown corporations operated at a 0 profit margin. They can do things like employee bonuses or salary increases to eat up any profits but can’t operate under the premise of “making money”?

The realtors will find a way to make it bad news, don’t worry.

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/noise-induced-hearing-loss

Apple did add the option to change the tone volume after this incident. So there must be something here. Also, it’s unlikely that the volume was only 105 db. But from most medical sources, typically up to 110 db is acceptable and may only cause hearing loss after decades. A siren hits up to 120-130 db.

Punctured ear drums usually occur because of pressure differences and not just loud sounds, so there may be more here than just loudness as AirPods do change the pressure around the ear (the Pro’s actually have an exhaust to alleviate the pressure build up from the sound and the seal around the ear).

Yeah, I’d say it’s 100% plausible.