Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 2) 550

by Ark42 (#47528197) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

The double images are faint, blurry, and off centered slightly. I'm guessing they are focus aberrations due to healing that will slowly fix themselves over time. I don't think its permanent by any means, but some aspects of Lasik heal very very fast, while others take months and months. For most daily activities, you will never notice the ghost images at all. They warn you about this only in saying that your nighttime driving vision may be bad because of "halos" but really what they mean is starbursts and ghost images around bright light sources with a dark contrast, and it manifest in anything such as small LEDs on computers/smoke alarms/etc or high-contrast white-on-black text.

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 2) 550

by Ark42 (#47527227) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I'm surprised they operated on you with -8. I looked into Lasik awhile back and all places refused to perform Lasik with that strong of a correction, for me they said it was PRK or nothing.

Some lasers are only approved to -5 or -6. Others are approved up to -15.0:
Although the doctor can always choose to do "off-label" corrections with any laser, the approved value is not a hard limit.

Chances are, if you can't get Lasik because of your prescription strength, then your cornea just isn't thick enough. It's a real concern once you get into the -8.00 and worse range, but some people have enough thickness, and others don't.

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 1) 550

by Ark42 (#47527193) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I've read it's pretty normal, and it should correct itself over time. It's still annoying, but it *only* is noticeable around the edges of bright lights with dark backgrounds. My right eye is pretty good, it's my left eye that has some "ghost" images to the left and up of the main image, when looking at bright lights, little LEDs, white on black text, etc. I still have red spots on my eyes from the suction used for the Intralase to cut the flap, so I know it's still healing, even if it doesn't hurt or anything.

Comment: Re:Uncertainty/fear? (Score 5, Interesting) 550

by Ark42 (#47525509) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

Where I went, everybody got 1 Valium and they gave you a stress ball to squeeze while everything was going on. Everything else sounds the same, except I didn't get a band-aid of any sort, they just put the flap back and I went home. Drove myself to the follow up the next morning at 8am.
Agree that you can smell the laser burning your eye away. That's one thing they never said up front. You can't feel or see anything other than a blurry blinking red spot, and you hear some clicking as the laser pulses, but that was all expected.

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 4, Interesting) 550

by Ark42 (#47525421) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I'm in my mid 30s and had -8.00 with another -1.00 astigmatism and I just had custom waveform Lasik done this month. The double and triple vision around bright objects is still very annoying after 3 weeks, even if my eyesight is 20/20 now. It's particularly bad in PuTTY or anything else that uses white text on a black background. I seriously hope it goes away within the next few months.

Comment: Re:You want IE to be relevant? (Score 1) 105

I understand how bad managers can create situations like this for developers, that's a given. All I was arguing is that IE10 and IE11 should both be pretty good browsers, capable of HTML5/CSS3 mostly on par with all the other major browsers now. I don't see how you can purposefully create *new* code that works on just IE10, and not IE11, without trying REALLY hard to be an idiot.

For legacy corporate sites, you just need to stick in a X-UA-Compatible to force IE to render in the version-mode you were originally targeting, and for the most part, I think things will keep working. Your IE10 and IE11 browsers can be forced to render everything as if they were IE9, or IE8, etc... This is only a "fix" for old, legacy sites though. For any new development, you should really stick a with IE=edge for X-UA-Compatible and just code to HTML5/CSS3 standards.

Comment: Re:You want IE to be relevant? (Score 1) 105

Like I said, you have to try REALLY hard to get yourself into such as situation, by explicitly NOT writing webpages to standard HTML5/CSS3. It's probably the result of poorly trained developers copy/pasting in tons of blobs of ancient javascript, or activeX controls that aren't going to work on newer versions of IE, or using some "toolkit" that spits out your HTML/CSS/JS for you instead of writing streamlined code yourself. Who knows. Like I said though, if you write standard HTML5/CSS3, you will have literally no trouble on IE10+ and Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc. I can pretty much guarantee it.

IE9 will generally also gracefully fall back, as it supports some HTML5, it's just missing lots of features you might want to use in CSS such as gradients, transitions, transformations, text-shadow, and then some basic HTML things like the placeholder attribute for form fields. With IE9 having support for CSS rgba, opacity, box-shadow, nth-child, calc, and some other important things like Javascript's addEventListener and JSON.parse, you can also pretty easily target IE9+ if you know which handful of neat CSS things to avoid.

Targeting IE8 and below requires all kinds of IE-specific code like attachEvent instead of addEventListener, and it's generally not worth targeting IE8 without some shim like JQuery. And for this reason, I've pretty much stopped using JQuery (as it's now mostly superfluous), and stopped targeting IE8 completely. Sorry Windows XP users, but you're going to need to use a 3rd party browser of some sort if you want to stay on the web.

Comment: Re:Han unification (Score 1) 108

by Ark42 (#47254339) Attached to: Unicode 7.0 Released, Supporting 23 New Scripts

I ran into this problem recently. The kanji for "leader" is supposed to be like the diagram at: (note the 4 individual lines for the top right piece) but the fonts on my Android phone insisted on rendering this glyph using the Chinese font, that looks like
It's not just drawn differently, it's actually one less stroke in Chinese, but it's supposed to be the same glyph somehow!
Unicode has no way to indicate which language you actually want characters like this to display in. Sure for single-language documents like HTML, you can use a lang= attribute and hope the browser handles it right, but you certainly can't mix the two together very easily.

Comment: Re:Why emoji? (Score 1) 108

by Ark42 (#47254255) Attached to: Unicode 7.0 Released, Supporting 23 New Scripts

I think the problem most people think Apple/Emoji has with compatibility is that old versions of Apple stuff used the private-use codepoint areas for emoji, instead of the Unicode standard code points. This has since been fixed, as far as I know, but there are a TON of free Android keyboards that are supposed to type emoji, but only use the old private-use codepoints, and thus don't display anything but a blank space or a square box on Android without some special app to translate and display them.

If you look harder though, you CAN find Android keyboards that have emoji buttons that produce the proper Unicode standard codepoints. The button on the keyboard may be in full color, but the glyph produced with be monochrome. Basically a limit of the direct font rendering, but it will work in every app without any issue then, and Apple people can still see the glyphs you send them via text just fine, etc.

Comment: Re:You want IE to be relevant? (Score 5, Interesting) 105

As somebody who occasionally freelancing HTML5 development, I can tell you I generally target IE10 and up, because IE10 forward has more or less the same feature set that Firefox/Chrome/Safari have had for years. IE9 and below are just lacking in all kinds of basic CSS support. You don't even need any Jquery or modernizer or other "fixes" if you just target IE10+. In fact, at some point, you start noticing that Chrome is actually the least modern of the big 4 browsers here. I know this is a controversial statement for the Slashdot groupthink, but there are many CSS3 features I've tried to use that work great in Firefox and IE10+, but Chrome fails at. Large gradients, for example, still don't render anywhere near what you'd want in Chrome (horrible banding and other weird render errors at angles, still not fixed in the latest version).

I think you'd have to try REALLY hard to specifically write a website that only works in IE11 and somehow not in IE10, as long as you're using HTML5/CSS3 standard stuff. The same goes for IE12. I don't know what features it will bring, but probably not anything real important that's going to change the huge divide between IE9- and IE10+.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle