

Unless it’s crackhead crackers, in which case the answer is technically both
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’s their patch to nerf a player that wrote have been insanely op.
I don’t think it’s balanced well, but it’s not the best coding
It would be kind of funny if they ended up bonding over that
I literally saw a comment about a month ago on Lemmy saying “what’s next, wrestling matches in the white house?” Or something like that.
Whoever you were, you fucking called it
There’s a chance you’ll find a bunch of illegal shrooms instead though
LASIK:
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.
Gotta admit, it mimics what some teens / young adults text like pretty well.
But that’s not a high bar to clear
I think it’s more that many countries don’t have affordable mental healthcare.
It costs a lot more to pay for a therapist than to use an LLM.
And a lot of people need therapy.
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.
This feels like confirmation of the conspiracy theory that they don’t want to be popular because of the Google money they get
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.
It’s not EU wide.
That’s as Mexican as Twinkies are French
I read tropical and was thinking they were planning on terra forming the moon
Making decent fried chicken to compete against them with? That’s how many places got rid of Starbucks.
Although unlike Starbucks, Nordic KFC tastes way better than American KFC for some reason. Tried it once when it arrived in Finland to see if it was true.
Now I’m curious on the statistics of this