It would be both.

They seem to be describing a potential defect in the correction that can occur, which causes “lens flares”, “blurring” or “smearing” of bright points of light. This is especially bad at night due to the contrast between lights and the darkness of the night.

It’s similar to a the effect you get with a camera when there are scratches or dents in the lens surface, or if it’s greasy. Except it’s in your eye.

Eye surgeries always come with risk. When they go wrong, you can even end up with worse vision than before.

If life is comfortable for you, I wouldn’t change anything.

I’m not sure why the surgery wouldn’t help with near-sightedness. It modifies the shape of the lens in your eye, essentially applying correction directly to your body.

How much can be done and in which direction, depends on the individual. As you’re essentially working with a subtractive tool (using a laser to remove stuff) to modify the optical material in your eye. You’re limited by the shape and amount of material in each persons eye in the first place, and you can’t make changes that would require adding material. As such, there is a maximum amount of correction that can be applied before you run out of usable material, and it varies from person to person.

If more is neded beyond that limit, you will still need glasses.

Oh good.

That the plan got frozen wasn’t nearly as publicized as it initially passing.

Meanwile, in Finland, we outsourced our fucking vote counting system, to god-damn AWS.

Something with an open source cannot be paywalled. You can charge for it, or use it in things that you charge for, but you can’t make a purchase the only way to get it.

Free as in freedom? Or free as in for free and at no charge?

Because the nature of FOSS makes it REALLY difficult to take away either.

cats*

I think of them as on the same spectrum.

A thin skinned person, is someone when you stab verbally or try to otherwise harm them in a non-physical manner, it goes straight through, and they are hurt by it. It affects their confidence, behaviour and health.

A thick skinned person, is someone you can insult, and they can dismiss the meaning of the words, and be unaffected by the intended harm.

But that is not mutually exclusive with going “wtf, did you just try to stab me?”. They are opposites, in the sense that the word describes whether malicious words or actions can “pass through” and have the intended effect.

But if someone tries to shoot me, and I’m wearing armor that means it won’t kill me, that still leaves the fact that they tried to shoot me. That I was able to survive it does not make the attempt on my life ok. Being thick skinned, or “wearing armor”, doesn’t mean you react to attacks with inaction.

It describes whether you suffer harm when under fire. Not how you behave in reaction to it.

A lot of people think of being thick skinned as synonymous with turning the other cheek. But being able to take BS doesn’t mean you have to passively allow it.

You don’t sound thin skinned.

Having a thick skin doesn’t mean being unbothered by people trying to walk over you, and thereby letting them.

I get accused of being thinskinned sometimes because of starting a confrontation over a problem or behaviour I’ve noticed, but that makes no sense. Being sensitive to issues is not a weakness, and being numb to them is certainly not a strength.

I can push for change precisely because I’m unbothered by the stress of working against the status quo.

But like others said, you don’t always need to convince. If you say you won’t cover a task because it’s not your responsibility, then there is nothing to discuss. If they expect a task to be done even when you said it won’t, that is not your problem.

It’s theirs.

No?

I get that clients might break, but the web portal running inside vaultwarden isn’t gonna suddenly stop working.

Vaultwarden itself is self-contained. An API change won’t do anything to it.

Except that “fake” voting patterns become impossible to spot.

The way they are now, you can look at how an account votes, when it was created, as well as their posts and comments, to determine whether an account is a legitimate user.

Creating fake accounts that look like legit users is a lot of work. Creating just one, then setting a number a really high, is much, much easier.

Wow! Absolute gold.

undue burden on small developers

Uuh, more often than not, the small devs already make their games indefinitely playable and preservable, just out of a love for the medium.

No actual artist wants their work to have an expiry date.

Legal enforcement is only needed for the passionless big publishers that shutter games just to funnel players into purchasing their latest releases.

It’s mentioned in the parliament presentation. Only a small minority of game publishers engage in this BS, but it’s ALL the big ones, meaning the problem is experienced by the vast majority of consumers.

By that logic, only the CEO is guilty.

Yes.

And that’s not what I do. Participating in evil is evil. I remind people of that. It’s so normal that it’s easy to forget.

If a person isn’t evil, they should want to stop as soon as possible. The ones that care can easily forget to endeavor to do so. Me included.

That line is always said in direct response to something they do.

If you focus on the action, you allow a lot of people to take comfort in the illusion that they are a good person, despite their actions.

That’s not how it works. If you do evil, then you are part of the problem. That only changes once you stop.

I’ve literally said “people like you are the reason the world sucks” to peoples faces.

It’s unlikely to change anyone, but someone has to tell them. Otherwise, the ones that try to lie to themselves about what they’re doing, might succeed.

Sure.

Saying people would end up “cowering in fear” and telling KDE to reassign the person who came up with making their own distro to kcalc was entirely pragmatic on your part.

You walked in with a lot more anger, and pointed it at a VOLUNTEER PROJECT that produces FREE SOFTWARE. You attributed profit motivations to them like they’re some kind corporate landlords out to capture the “market”.

The other person commented with info that shows KDE does not have the goals you suspected.

My comment explained why you were insane to have suspicions in the first place.

KDE is not a company, and doesn’t have profit incentives. I’m sorry if I corrected you on that a little too vehemently, but that doesn’t invalidate the point.

Or even my heated tone in response to your heated post.

Volunteer projects, have volunteers. Not project managers you can punish by “assigning” them to do stuff they have no interest in.

Yeah… Except GoodYear is a commercial entity. While KDE is not.

The reason corporations pull that kind of shit, is because there’s money in it.

Why the fuck would a FOSS project start locking down functionality? They don’t sell anything. Even when FOSS projects charge, the second they’re unfair about it, people will just fork the project and take it for free.

KDE doesn’t have “sales”. They don’t care whether they have a thousand users or a million. The money they “make” is the same. Because KDE isn’t a product you buy. Their revenue doesn’t go up or down depending on how many people they can get to use their desktop environment and applications.

In fact, if anything, doing what you suspect would cause people to donate less to the project.

The thing about FOSS projects is that if they forced you to use them in a way that upsets you… You can just not pay. With GoodYear, making you unhappy is worth it, because you still have to buy the car.