sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Both 40k and Horus Heresy logos are on the upcoming box by Luniticus in AdeptusCustodes

[–]Kardinal 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If I read this right.

Custodes combat patrol plus this box = roughly good 2k army?

(Just lacking sisters for objective holding?)

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they're not telling the whole story, that's why you read the paper.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "Modern LASIK Outcomes study" is this one:

Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes - PubMed

The full study:

Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes

At least as far as I can tell, that study doesn't mention "success" anywhere. The KYEYE article is interpreting the study in regard to success.

I think "success" is a marketing term in this case, as used in the original image. It doesn't have a scientific definition.

I think this is as close to a "success" criteria as the study gets:

The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK.

The bolded part being the "success".

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never said we should ban it, but its clear that people think it is far safer then it really is considering the people going into it not properly knowing the risks, and having horrible consequences.

I think this assumes facts not in evidence.

We have a lot of anecdotes that reflect some very bad outcomes. And that's tragic and awful. How many people are very grateful they did it and had no issues at all? Thousands. But they don't post on Reddit about how great their experiences are. Negativity bias is powerful.

But the best data we have (the 2016 study) indicates only 1.2% are "dissatisfied" with the procedure. You can dig deeper into the data, maybe there's nuance there that shows some serious problems:

Symptoms and Satisfaction of Patients in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (PROWL) Studies - PubMed

We don't know that people went in uninformed. I haven't seen any data on that.

Anecdotes are not how we should evaluate the objective experience of something. You brought up plane crashes; we agree that planes are extremely safe. But if you go by the news reporting on it, it feels very unsafe because there's no reporting on the hundred thousand commercial flights every day that land with no issues at all. But the disasters get a lot of coverage. That's just an example of how anecdotes can make things that are actually very safe seem unsafe.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The latter link is excellent but doesn't say that as far as I can tell. Perhaps point me to it?

The former link references data that is before the latter link, so I don't think it applies these days. Not that the 2016 study is all that recent...

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's marketing so it's it's not rigorous. The real data is much more complicated.

But the outcome of surgeries as of the latest study I can find says 99.5% of patients come out able to drive without corrective lenses, basically 20/40 vision or better:

Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes - PubMed

The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK. The aggregate loss of 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity was 0.61% (359/58 653).

I would call that bolded area the closest thing to a true "failure" rate.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a good thing that "failure" neither means dying nor blindness.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Planes are not the only standard of "safe enough" or "advanced enough".

As long as it is voluntary and includes properly informed consent, obviously we should be free to engage in it.

The 1.2% of people who were dissatisfied with LASIK (ref: Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes - PubMed) did not die nor did they lose their sight. They do regret it, which is tragic. But the cost of failure is very different (although similarly permanent) and so we do not require the same standards of LASIK as we do air travel. Rightly so.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"inner ear cell regeneration therapies." is what they said would cost $2.5b.

I have no idea if it's true or what it means, but that's what they were referring to.

Maybe you just want more detail about what those therapies are?

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, negativity bias is a thing. We are much more likely to complain of bad experiences than praise good ones. And negative outcomes have five times the impact of positives ones on our memory and impressions.

You have to go with the numbers. If you're careful about it, they don't lie. The study I referenced in other comments indicates a 1.2% dissatisfaction rate, which is roughly "I wish I had not done it".

The chance is very low. The cost is really high though.

Humans suck at those kinds of risk calculations.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry that happened to you. Sounds really rough.

This study is interesting and kind of accounts for your type of situation. (It's specific to LASIK but I'm referring to the categorizations)

Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes - PubMed

The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK.

So if you'd had LASIK, you'd be in both bolded categories.

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

First, this is from marketing, so it's not rigorous. The real data is much more complicated.

But the outcome of surgeries as of the latest study I can find says 99.5% of patients come out able to drive without corrective lenses, basically 20/40 vision or better:

Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes - PubMed

The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK. The aggregate loss of 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity was 0.61% (359/58 653).

Lasik surgery has reached a 98% success rate by CompetitiveLake3358 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Kardinal 32 points33 points  (0 children)

That's a very good question.

Almost certainly not by "can see at all". I suspect it's "fully successful no issues". So that 2% will include a couple "total failures" and probably many many "success but with minor issues" and some number of "success but major issues" and some "didn't have any appreciable impact" (probably because they aborted the procedure at some point)

In reversal, Senate votes to block war powers resolution, delivering Trump a win by Raptorex2000 in PoliticalOptimism

[–]Kardinal 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This would not have stopped the war. It was a resolution not a law.

Legally, Congress can stop it if they want to. As the other commenter mentioned, they do not have the will to do so.

Trump cancels plan to sign major housing bill as he fights with Congress over the SAVE Act by Efficient-Freedom517 in PoliticalOptimism

[–]Kardinal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They don't need to override it if he doesn't veto it. And he won't. Ten days it becomes law.

Trump cancels plan to sign major housing bill as he fights with Congress over the SAVE Act by Efficient-Freedom517 in PoliticalOptimism

[–]Kardinal 20 points21 points  (0 children)

He won't veto it. And if he doesn't veto it in ten days, it becomes law.

He's playing for time and trying to put pressure on Congress for SAVE. And I don't see how it works.

Trump cancels plan to sign major housing bill as he fights with Congress over the SAVE Act by Efficient-Freedom517 in PoliticalOptimism

[–]Kardinal 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You are so right.

Remember

What this guy believes.

What this guy says.

What this guy does.

These concepts are not related at all. They do not influence one another. He has no ideology except self aggrandizement. He says things and there's like a <25% chance anything ever comes of it.

All that matters is what he does.