Yeah, you should switch to Windows but ethical instead, so ReactOS

No problem, figured that was the case since it’s happened to me too

Cattle numbers are also down because of Trump btw. Long term effect from his 1st presidency + his current policies helped the screw worm flies get through Panama.

Yes, it does, it’s literally basic math.

49.24÷4.48=10.99

78.03÷4.88=15.99

It could also be that the owner is named Crompton Veggie, and these are his Veggie burgers

So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.

An ICL has an estimated averaged 10.5% chance of causing cataracts - if it’s the old types of lens.

The newer ones, that come with small macroholes in them, drops that chance to an average of 1.2% chance.

And the newest type still, made with micropores as well as the macroholes, is currently at 0.5% chance - although it’s too new for exact long term data, and the percentage is so low it’s within margin of error.

The reason cataracts had a chance of forming in the old type of lenses was

•because the lenses were much bigger •the lack of holes messed with fluid circulation •bigger lenses increased the odds of the surgeon messing up the placement

In all cases however, ICL leaves no permanent damage to the eye, unlike LASIK, and has fewer side effects in general. It’s also, importantly, reversible, so even in the case of cataracts, or anything else like worsened vision, you can have the lens removed and replaced. With LASIK, the damage means the change is permanent, and improving eyesight afterwards is much more limited.

This information I found from research papers I had to use sci-hub to read, which I can’t link, but I can go through my search history to give you the DOIs if you want.

Btw, all this was a bit moot because I also found out that LASIK can also increase the odds of cataracts as well.

My points were quotes from mayoclinic and Cleveland clinic.

Yours are still anecdotal

Ok, my mistake, I made one error, about which part LASIK permanently burns off and damages.

My bad.

The main point still stands tho.

Yup, that’s what I’m saying.

You can lose the ability to pee with kidney failure.

And your health goes down drastically once you do

When I started dialysis, I could still work and such. But I could also still pee.

After about 2 years, I lost the ability completely, and that’s when physical activity became harder, because the water removal fluctuations became harsher with dialysis.

Then I moved to Finland, which has hemodiafiltration instead of only hemodialysis like the USA, and got much better again.

It was the most convenient thing, unless you ate something too salty or get the water crazies.

Because then you start to drown in your own lungs.

But, watching any show, movie, or playing a game without having to pee was very convenient

Now I’m curious on the statistics of this

Unless it’s crackhead crackers, in which case the answer is technically both

It’s actually not known why, but it’s very common with kidney transplant. I was told it’s thought to be because of the bladder, not the kidney (since we can go years without peeing before transplant).

It would be kind of funny if they ended up bonding over that

There’s a chance you’ll find a bunch of illegal shrooms instead though

LASIK:

"An excimer laser precisely reshapes the stromal layer of the cornea, removing microscopic amounts of tissue to correct refractive errors. "

LASIK permanently changes the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye, using an excimer laser. A mechanical microkeratome (a blade device) or a laser keratome (femtosecond laser) is used to cut a flap in the cornea. A hinge is left at one end of this flap. The flap is folded back revealing the corneal stroma, the middle section of the cornea. Pulses from a computer-controlled laser (excimer laser) vaporize a portion of the stroma and the flap is replaced.[2]

Performing the laser ablation in the deeper corneal stroma provides for more rapid visual recovery and less pain than the earlier technique, photorefractive keratectomy.

[• Undercorrections. If the laser removes too little tissue from your eye, you won’t get the clearer vision results you were hoping for. Undercorrections are more common for people who are nearsighted. You may need another LASIK procedure within a year to remove more tissue.

• Overcorrections. It’s also possible that the laser will remove too much tissue from your eye. Overcorrections may be more difficult to fix than undercorrections.](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/about/pac-20384774)

(Linked texts cover additional risks, just highlighting the ones proving LASIK works by permanently damaging tissue)

versus ICL:

[After dilating and numbing your eyes, your surgeon will make a very small incision at the base of your cornea. They’ll fold and insert the implantable lens into the cut and then adjust it behind your iris and in front of your lens. You probably won’t need stitches because the incision is so small and will heal on its own.

• If you needed to have the surgery reversed, you could. There’s no structural damage to your eye. ](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/25050-implantable-collamer-lens-icl-surgery) And unlike LASIK:

• You’re at less risk for dry eye.

• You may have really good night vision.

Sorry, y’all have been bamboozled then, and you’re the one spreading qanon level misinformation. The only real thing you’ve said is that ICL is more expensive, which is true. Which calls into question the integrity of the rest of your anecdotal claims as well.

ICL is reversible, and it’s on the surface layer of the eye, which can fully heal itself.

Way less invasive than burning off a part of your inner eye permanently.

Also, Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it’s actually damaging the inner eye.

Meanwhile the lens in the ICL naturally gives a tiny bit of extra UV protection.

ICL is scarier to get, I’ll say that though. A knife on the eye is definitely much more terrifying than a quick laser zap, but the downsides of Lasik are not worth it - the dryer eyes, worse halos, etc.

Worst part with Lasik is since it’s permanent, if you get it at a younger age (45 or under really), you’ll still need glasses if your vision gets worse.

With an ICL, you can swap to a stronger lens that’s adjusted as needed.

ICL > Lasik

Whoops, should have elaborated that was their source of wealth so people don’t think they got rich from allegedly inventing broccoli (didn’t know it was contested)

Broccoli is named after the family which invented it. The family line so exists with the last name of Broccoli and is quite wealthy.