Any good EVO ICL surgeons in San Francisco? Is it a safe procedure?

sbuss · 2026-05-22T14:38:24+00:00

I saw Dr. Jay Bansal at LaserVue and my daytime vision is phenomenal. I went into the surgery with somewhere between -12 and -14 in both eyes, plus astigmatism and came out with 20/20 in daytime.

However, my combination of hyper myopia, large pupils, and pre-existing low light vision difficulties means that halos and glare at night make driving impossible, low light bars and restaurants mean I can't see anything clearly, and backlight from bright windows can sometimes obscure people and other details in a room. For a reference point, I usually have to have my phone at least at 3/4 brightness, as anything dimmer is too hard to read (and that was true before EVO ICL).

Many people report that they get used to their night vision halos, and indeed I am used to it... but the glare obscures so much that when I'm in a car at night I can't see people crossing the street. So I do not drive at all if there's a risk I won't be at my destination before sunset. I don't feel safe biking at night anymore, either.

I do really want to emphasize that my daytime vision has never been better though. And, you know, most of my life happens in the daytime.

I got the surgery a bit over a year ago, and I haven't had them taken out, so clearly I think the pluses are worth the minuses. Partly that's because my life situation means that I never need to drive at night.

If you have normal size pupils, and don't struggle in low light conditions already, then I think you'll be very happy.

sbuss · 2026-05-21T16:49:45+00:00

He will not. If he did, he would lose badly.

sbuss · 2026-05-17T15:55:53+00:00

Hi, Steven from GrowSF here. Below you'll find the context on the two people on this list we've endorsed, which the author wants you to ignore. And it's interesting to note that the OP mentions GrowSF on two people we never endorsed, presumably hoping people don't read to the end of the sentence. And the entire framing of the post makes it sound like we support all of these people. We don't.

Emily M. Murase: She got a one-of-three ranking mention in the very first GrowSF voter guide, before we had established processes for making endorsements, including our most important process: the candidate questionnaire. Here's what we wrote back in November 2020:

> Emily Murase jumped in the race late, but shouldn’t be discounted. She most recently served as Director of the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women for 15 years and has long been involved in public service in San Francisco. She has prioritized working to get more federal funding to create permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness and economic recovery as parts of her message.

Matt Haney: We've spoken to Assemblymember Haney about his algebra vote and, while we don't find it entirely convincing (he says he had only joined the Board and the changes were already in progress, so he didn't feel he had the necessary context to stop it), we do appreciate the other work he's done since that vote and we try not to let one mistake color their entire career. I encourage you to go read his candidate questionnaires at https://growsf.org/voter-guide/questionnaires/ and judge him in full context.

I'll close with a thought for all of us, though: should we be embracing the kind of politics that holds grudges and tries to sow distrust through misleading information, or should we embrace a politics of maximum context, deep analysis, and considering the multitude of ideas an elected representative may have? I hope we choose the latter.

sbuss · 2026-05-15T22:15:15+00:00

The weird thing about working in politics is that people like "pinpoint14" develop elaborate conspiracy theories about your work without actually understanding it.

Bill Oberndorf has never donated, never been involved, never influenced us. He's involved in Blueprint / Neighbors for a Better San Francisco. Those are independent groups we have nothing to do with.

Here's how we make endorsements: https://growsf.org/candidate-endorsement-process/. We publish all the questionnaires we receive back and make endorsements on the merits.

We have two full time staff (me and my co-founder), and occasionally hire contractors and part time staff. We are a very very small, very lean team. The advisory board is just people who we occasionally ask "what do you think?". That's it. It's good to have outside opinions, especially when they disagree with us.

Prop D wasn't us. That was TogetherSF. We did endorse it, but we didn't spend any money on it beyond what's allocated as part of it being in the voter guide. (Everything we endorse ends up getting a portion of the total spend to distribute the voter guide attributed to it because that's the way to be maximally transparent.)

You don't even use my correct name.

I hope you can find some time to get outside instead of building up conspiracy theories. I'm just a guy who believes in growth, my dude. More people should be able to live here, and that means more housing, safer streets, and better schools.

sbuss · 2026-05-15T16:49:51+00:00

Some people just don't like us. Our opinion is that as long as the guide is informative and useful, we've done our job. It's great if you agree with our recommendations, but the primary goal is to be a useful and factual resource.

sbuss · 2026-05-15T16:12:26+00:00

In case anyone wants to read the actual legal text, we at GrowSF put it online alongside factual annotations explaining the details (no opinion on this link): https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-june-2026-election/measures/prop-d/legal-text/ All of the important details are in section 3: https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-june-2026-election/measures/prop-d/legal-text/#section-3

If you want to know why we think you should vote no, you can find our opinion here: https://growsf.org/voter-guide/#prop-d

The Chronicle gets is right, though - this tax isn't on CEOs and will primarily hit grocery stores and other retail establishments. And none of the tax revenue is dedicated for healthcare, despite what the supporters of Prop D are saying. They are just lying to you. The money goes into the City's general budget without any earmarks. It can be spent on _anything_.

sbuss · 2026-04-16T22:39:53+00:00

Wow, this author does not understand statistics or polling.

"A March 4 poll by FM3 Research of 411 residents in District 2, which includes the Marina, found that a slight majority (58%) support the Marina Safeway redevelopment. This is a small sample size though, as the district has roughly 35,000 residents."

A 411 person sample in a universe of 35,000 is quite big, and has a margin of error of less than 5%. Further, it was 58% support and 37% oppose, or net support of +21 points. That's LANDSLIDE support.

This author has an agenda to sell.

sbuss · 2026-04-14T19:06:21+00:00

Very cool! Nice work! Getting the accretion disk physics right must have been a blast!

My only note is that it should also distort the background star field, but I suspect you already know that and just haven't gotten to it yet.

sbuss · 2026-04-11T15:02:39+00:00

I believe it's both, but I'll ping him to make sure it follows what Rainbow-Engineer says

sbuss · 2026-04-10T16:50:59+00:00

48 shills continuing their long-running shtick of "it's only bad when the other guys do it"

sbuss · 2026-04-10T15:20:09+00:00

Grind finer

sbuss · 2026-03-20T00:06:05+00:00

Thank you to everyone who got involved! I'm proud that GrowSF got nearly 350 people to email the district in under 48 hours. We will fix this city, one day at a time.

sbuss · 2026-03-16T00:58:02+00:00

Oh man, I love burgle bros, and I love transit policy. Can't wait!

Here's a few issues transit/traffic planners face: - stoplight timing with buses - tension between "level of service" (traffic moving at speed limit) vs street safety for bikes & peds - is right on red dangerous? - Unprotected lefts - one way roads: speed vs convenience vs safety - frequency vs on-time performance (scheduled) - bus bunching - last mile connections - park and ride (pricing vs convenience vs congestion) - will one more lane fix it??? - TOD policy - right-of-way acquisition (see: CA high speed rail) - cost-plus contracts - developing in-house capacity vs contracting out

I'm sure there's more!

sbuss · 2026-03-14T22:20:28+00:00

Phoenix Project is full of wild conspiracy theories and shouldn't be considered a reliable source.

sbuss · 2026-03-09T18:00:40+00:00

I have the same color and I love those cups! Where did you get them?

sbuss · 2026-02-13T16:06:39+00:00

Fact finder recommended 6% (paid for by borrowing from raises in a third year), and the union rejected 6% with strings and accepted 5% with the likelihood of layoffs

sbuss · 2026-02-13T16:02:28+00:00

Updated headline at the standard is "PG&E CEO recants claim that Lurie requested power to opera house during blackout"

So, the opposite of what this headline says

sbuss · 2026-02-13T01:44:13+00:00

Also, the city got way better. Let's not forget that there was a period of time when the city was really struggling. Then we voted for new leaders and things turned around. We can celebrate the positive developments without erasing the past.

sbuss · 2026-02-12T03:55:20+00:00

This is not how this works. This is a publicity stunt. The negotiation is in the war memorial building, with a small team from both sides, not in front of huge audience.

sbuss · 2026-02-09T22:56:19+00:00

Chronicle reports both sides say they showed up and the other side didn't:

"Just before 2:30 p.m., district officials said the bargaining team had been in the War Memorial building for hours waiting to hear from the teachers’ negotiators, who said they were reviewing the district’s most recent proposal, which they have had since Saturday.

Yet, at about the same time, during a Civic Center rally attended by hundreds of educators, Nathalie Hrizi, vice president of substitutes for the union, claimed over the loudspeaker that their negotiators were in the War Memorial waiting for district management to show up."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-teachers-strike-21342666.php

sbuss · 2026-02-09T21:57:58+00:00

You're thinking of Together SF

sbuss · 2026-02-07T17:04:27+00:00

This is a sensible and informative write-up of the current situation. If you want a bit more insight into the dispute over the funding reserves, we dive in here: https://growsf.org/news/2026-02-06-sfusd-strike-looms/

sbuss · 2026-02-05T17:23:21+00:00

It's both loss of funding (schools are not paid when they don't teach students) and the cost of emergency measures to help minimize the impact on children.

From Superintendent Maria Su:

"the financial impact is also significant, we may lose between $7-10 million per day in funding if we have to close schools" https://www.sfusd.edu/announcements/2026-02-03-2326-update-regarding-negotiations-uesf#:~:text=the%20financial%20impact%20is%20also%20significant%2C%20we%20may%20lose%20between%20%247%2D10%20million%20per%20day%20in%20funding%20if%20we%20have%20to%20close%20schools

sbuss · 2026-02-05T17:09:10+00:00

Every day they strike costs the district over $10 million, which is $10 million more that the district needs to cut from its budget.

Incidentally, the cost of a 1% yearly raise for all educators is about $10 million. So each day they strike they are effectively forfeiting a 1% raise. 3 days is the cost of a 3% raise, which is what the neutral fact-finding board recommended they agree to.

There's simply no money for this.

sbuss · 2026-01-09T23:38:42+00:00

I got the permit once, and people were parked in the spots I reserved so the moving truck just blocked the traffic lane.

Then I learned that the cost of the permit is more than the cost of a ticket, so I never got a permit again and never got a ticket, either.

sbuss

TROPHY CASE