Many LASIK patients may wind up with glare, halos or other visual symptoms - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/11/23/many-lasik-patients-may-wind-up-with-glare-halos-or-other-visual-symptoms-study-suggests/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_lasik-1115am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory <comment><USER2> I got LASIK as soon as I could pay for it after getting a decent software job out of school. Found contacts pretty annoying and wasn't interested in wearing glasses full-time. I think it was a holdover insecurity from childhood, associating glasses with being a 'nerd' \-- I had worn them since 2nd grade. By the end of college I still didn't like the way my glasses looked on me and avoided wearing them whenever possible.

It's been a few years since the surgery now. The side effects are minor. My night vision has degraded somewhat: halos around lights can make depth- perception while driving slightly difficult, and I can't distinguish shapes in the dark as well. Not a big deal, mostly just slightly annoying when camping.

But I now realize that I miscalculated. I've become somewhat more fashion- conscious since college and now see that it would have been much easier and more cost-effective to actually find some glasses that made me look good. If I knew what I knew now about 'looking decent' I wouldn't have done it.

<comment><USER3> I've been wearing glasses for my horrible vision since early grade school and now well into my 30s. I don't know why anyone would wear them if there is an option not to. They constantly smudge, fog, awful in any weather situation, etc. I carry a microfiber cloth with me at all times just to be able to clean them. What a nightmare. It's fine if you wear non-refractive glasses as a fashion accessory because those can just be taken off when inconvenient. When you can't drive or barely walk without them, it's another story.

<comment><USER4> This is what drove me to use contacts full-time. It was so frustrating keeping my glasses clean. They'd smudge, and I'd clean them, and it wouldn't be all gone, and I'd clean them some more, and then it would be OK for a bit, and then I'd get something on them, and....

I decided not to go with LASIK just because it doesn't seem worth the tradeoff. Contacts take me about thirty seconds per day to insert and remove, not a big deal. Just making up the LASIK recovery period would take a long time. Plus the risk of permanent side-effects. Contacts have those too, but it can be substantially mitigated by using them properly (always washing hands, never sleeping in them, always changing them at the appropriate time, etc.).

I totally understand why people might see the tradeoffs differently, of course.

<comment><USER5> i wore contacts up until age 26 or so when they became unbearable due to dryness and worsening astigmatism. optometrist told me the same happens to a lot of people. I can handle certain brands of dailies for about 4 hrs but just way more hassle than glasses.

<comment><USER6> For me the 2 main reasons I dislike glasses are:

1\. Peripheral, especially when driving.

2\. Uncomfortable, pinches nose, laying down on side with them on.

Also: Modification of scale of things. Makes things smaller the further they are from my eyes. Not a big deal, but I always feel kind of satisfied when I go back to contacts because of accuracy of perception. I suppose if I can get glasses with thinner material this might be less of an issue.

Keeping them clean and smudge free isn't that big of a deal for me, I just wipe them with my shirt, and normally it's not bad enough to bother me. Fogging is slightly annoying I suppose, but goes away quick.

I also seemed to have an ever-increasing strength of prescription. The last time I had them checked was in 2010, and my optometrist changed my brand from Coopervision to Acuvue because I was refusing to take mine off at night, and the Oasis is supposed to be more meant for that. I then had two bouts of some sort of pink eye (after nights of heavy drinking, but still didn't happen with my Coopervision even then), and also in general my eyes would feel drier in them. They had these slits that would become uncomfortable fairly quickly.

I switched back to my old Coopervision prescription from 2008 or 2009 and they have been working fine for me. From my own anecdotal experience, it's my theory that the constant stronger prescriptions are what makes your eyes worse. I've also heard anecdotes from other people about them just stopping wearing eye correction and their eyes get better.

<comment><USER7> >>> I also seemed to have an ever-increasing strength of prescription.

I have a hunch that optometrists tend to slightly overprescribe the strength. Every time I would get a new prescription, I would walk out with superhuman vision, but than after a few days my eyes would adjust. At my last visit to the optometrist, I actually requested a lower strength and they obliged. And while I might have to squint here and there to read something really far away, I spend a good chunk of my time in front of computer, so I prefer the lower strength.

And I agree on increasing your eye strength as well. I try to take off my glasses frequently, and I have noticed that if I go for a while without them, my vision seems a little better when I put them back on. Also there are some apps that help as well [1]

[1] Came across this link on HN a while back: [https://github.com/Fordi/eyegame](https://github.com/Fordi/eyegame)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And this is why I bit the bullet, and went for the longer healing, but less side effect Lasek[1] (although this applies to PRK as well)

It was a "fun" 3 weeks of healing ( versus 1-2 days for lasik ), but PRK based procedures have substantially less of these side effects.

edited: to note that i had lasek done.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy)

<comment><USER9> I got PRK a year ago. No real issues, 20/20 vision, but the persistent dry eye is annoying. It's really bad in the winter.

Artificial tear eye drops help a lot, but sometimes I have to use them twice per day.

<comment><USER10> Ditto, today I'm 1 year to the day after my PRK surgery. The only side effect I had was dry-eye, and man is it a pain. I can't ride my bike without some form of eye protection (sunglasses, or clear goggles). 2-3 times per week I wake up with severely, painfully dry eyes.

All that said, it was worth it and I wouldn't go back. Being able to see without glasses/contacts is a huge improvement on quality of life.

+1 for PRK over Lasik

<comment><USER11> I have dry eyes now as a result of PRK and part of me wishes I had just stuck with contacts.

<comment><USER9> Part of me wishes the same, but then I remember all the advantages of having no contacts or glasses and I know it's worth it. Carrying around eye drops isn't that much of a hassle, and the dry eye usually is just more uncomfortable than painful. It's only an issue when there's a lot of wind shear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm so glad people are talking about this!

Here's a question for you:

If LASIK involved a 1/10,000 chance of losing ten thousand dollars, would you do it? How about hundred thousand? One million? I would probably stop here - would wan't to be in one million debt.

So what's functioning eyesight worth to you? Because to me it's more than $1m, more than billion, more than all the money in the world. I wouldn't risk it even if there was one failed case to millions.

Anyway, this is my setup:

1\. Contacts for sports/social activities

2\. Lightweight glasses for work (like Snowden in his iconic photo). Don't like to wear this in social setting. I would feel nerdy.

3\. Fashionable round glasses with that spotted texture. Can't get used to the plastic glasses, so I don't wear them a whole lot, but no problem wearing them in social setting.

<comment><USER4> Contacts aren't risk-free either. By choosing to wear them over glasses for sports and social activities, you're making the same basic choice, perhaps with different numbers. (I say this as one who chose contacts over surgery, and I use them exclusively, no glasses.)

<comment><USER13> Yes! Many people seem to miss this for whatever reason. There is no risk-free choice if you are unlucky enough to have poor eyesight.

Personal anecdote: I have a retinal scar from an eye infection that was a direct result of wearing contacts. The $2K I spent on LASIK in my early twenties was the best money I've ever spent.

I did a good amount of research and came to the conclusion that the expected value of LASIK outweighed that of contacts over a lifetime. To simplify things a bit, you are trading a one-time risk of a serious post-surgery complication for a risk of a contact-caused eye infection spread out over the remaining years of your life.

<comment><USER14> I was evaluated for wavefront LASIK at the Stanford Eye Laser Center and I asked the doctor there specifically about this, because like you I wondered whether LASIK would be lower-risk than wearing contacts for the rest of my life. He said that conditioned on the fact that I had already worn contacts continually for several years without any problems, it probably wasn't true that continuing to wear contacts was a higher risk than LASIK. (I might have gotten LASIK anyway, but it turned out that I have unusually large pupils, which ups the likelihood of bad side effects.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had a SMILE (which is the next generation procedure) operation done a year ago. I went from -9 with heavy astigmatism on both eyes to around -0.5 on one and -0.15 on the other with a slight astigmatism. It was two awful weeks of pain because of eye drops I am allergic to, but worth every moment of it.

See, I've worn glasses since I was a kid. At age 8 my prescription were more -6. I ended up being a goalkeeper on my soccer team because I kept getting my glasses smashed. When I got older, I found out I couldn't use contacts because my eyes were always too dry. My glasses cost af fortune, I only had one pair and when it broke, I had to do it without for weeks. So I became cautious.

I knew the surgery existed. But for a lot of years I hesitated. I feared what if the surgery went bad, what if I went blind. Or my vision deteriorated. I use it evey day for my job. So even with the promise of a free, corrective surgery (thank you, public health care) I chose not to.

But last year I realised that if I ever were to have this surgery and not wear glasses at all for a while, it was now. Because in ten years I'll have reading glasses. So I went for it, and now I'm certain I'm bringing my own kids when I exit the public pool.

My eye sight isn't as perfect as it was before (120 %), but I had a corrective LASIK operation done two months ago on the "worst" eye, and it's above average now. Even though it's worse than it was, it's been an awesome trade off.

<comment><USER16> > I found out I couldn't use contacts because my eyes were always too dry

How are they, post surgery?

<comment><USER17> Same question... I already have a minor case of dry eye. I've heard LASIK makes for dry eye and both my ophthalmologist and I are in agreement LASIK is a bad idea.

<comment><USER15> The first SMILE procedure seemed much easier on my eyes, at least for the first days. Then it was horribly ruined by an antibacterial eye drop that we later found out that I'm allergic to.

The LASIK procedure gave me a dry eye but they, sensible enough, switched me onto another eye drop, so it's hard to compare.

A couple of months after, the LASIK eye is slightly more dry than the other. </anecdata>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I had it done nearly 10 years ago and ever since, my eyes are much more sensitive to light and I do see halos around lights at night. That said, I'd still have it done again without a second thought - the benefits for me far outweigh those drawbacks.

<comment><USER19> I've seen halos for as long as I can remember. Never had any eye surgery of any kind, and doctors tell me my eyes are fine. It's kind of annoying, but no big deal.

Wish I knew what caused it though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Tell me about it. I'm stunned what a hugely amateurish pastime lasik turned out to be. One of my eyes was an entire diopter out and had to be reworked. I get nasty kinda splodges at night (a mere halo would be delightful). And had someone told me my view of the night sky would be ruined forever I might've thought differently about it.

<comment><USER21> > And had someone told me my view of the night sky would be ruined forever

Due to halos around celestial objects? I've never thought about that aspect and is a very good point.

<comment><USER22> I honestly would say the halos around celestial objects are similar to what you would see if you had slight astigmatism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had a great outcome, dare I say ideal? Knock on wood...

I got Wavefront LASIK more than a year ago and it feels like I was born with perfect vision -- I seriously have no side effects. Seriously, what are halos? I couldn't describe it to you even if I tried. The first few months were pretty dry (to the point where I had headaches) but that eventually subsided. If you're in the market for LASIK and actually do your due diligence, it's pretty common to see people who are dealing with side effects. My advice is to (1) don't cheap out and feel comfortable with your doctor, and (2) adopt a healthy lifestyle to let your eyes heal.

LASIK was one of the best investments I've ever made. I think most people who've had the procedure will say the same.

<comment><USER24> This is me. I had LASIK in a highly rated surgery in London about 18 months ago where the care and after care was exceptional. I had halos for about 1 month after, but that was it. My eyes were dry for a week or two, but again they soon went back to normal (I recommend Blink drops - amazing). I was left with 20/12 vision and couldn't recommend having it done more.

<comment><USER25> Please could you share the name of the London clinic?

<comment><USER24> Sure - it was [https://www.londonvisionclinic.com/](https://www.londonvisionclinic.com/)

My Mum and sister both had Lasik here as well (again, no problems at all) and I couldn't recommend them more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I too longed for the day that I could have laser surgery. My eyes didn't particularly enjoy soft contacts, and I did not like wearing (even fashionable) glasses.

But I held it off because of the downsides, such as relapses in eye prescription strength, the constant need to water your eyes and permanent visual artifacts. That and the not inconsiderable price.

Very glad that I basically chickened out, because instead I discovered overnight vision correction contacts [1]. They are hard contact lenses you wear during the night, and they reshape your cornea during the night so that your my/hyperopia just dissappears during the day. During the day, it allows you to function with normal vision without any aid whatsoever.

It's really quite amazing for me. Downsides are a halo effect (but one that actually diminishes to the point that I don't notice), and the fact that you have to wear contacts during the night, but I _much_ prefer that to wearing any during the day. I can happily recommend trying this before considering more permanent solutions such as eye surgery if you fit in the eye prescription range that it works for.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthokeratology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthokeratology) / apparently marketed as "Ortho-K" in NA?

<comment><USER27> Your post is the first downvote I'm giving on HN.

I'm pretty sure Ortho-K gave me astigmatism. It does not work for higher ranges of myopia and touting it as better alternative is disingenuous at best. Night driving was downright impossible and the halo effects were so strong that I would be a menace for anyone on the road.

I strongly urge people to consider it very carefully, because the impact can be as significant as a surgery.

<comment><USER26> Sorry to hear it. I've updated my post to make some of the wording more subjective.

The halo effects are indeed quite strong in the first weeks (took my eyes about 6 weeks to fully adjust), but they have practically disappeared for me and I feel very comfortable night driving now. I appreciate that different eyes and different care can cause wildly different results and experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I had done a ton of research back when I first had Prk done on both eyes in 2010. At that time. The military only allowed waivers for prk for pilots and I wanted to be a army helicopter pilot. My doctor and nurses kinda told me (secretly) later that most everyone opts for Lasik and that they thought prk was better and had less complications. Beyond the moderately more upfront discomfort. That long term the stats were better for prk. It took a bit before I stopped regretting it(from discomfort). Eventually I came around to thinking it was best decision. My quality of life has gone up a lot(not having to deal with glassses/contacts) Simply being able to see the clock in the middle of the night. And I recently had it done a 2nd time on my right eye. Currently try in healing now (2 days ago) it was significantly less bothersome this time. No idea why. And while I never had any noticeable night time driving issues. I think this is probably a decreasing concern in that in a few years with the rise of autonomous cars. Most of us won't night drive anyways.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wavefront/custom LASIK completely removes or greatly reduces these side effects. If you are getting LASIK now, you should not settle for anything but wavefront LASIK.

The reason is, regular LASIK applies the same "fix" to the entire cornea, and the further from the center you go, the more this "fix" will be off by. So in low light situations when your pupils expand, they are now letting in light from the outsides of your eye where the fix is not as good, and you get blurriness, halos, or glares. It's quite simple to understand and really makes it obvious that you should only get Wavefront LASIK at this point.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have terrible vision and have been short-sighted since first grade. I wear daily contact lenses now and this is fine for me. For those experiencing dryness with contacts, be sure your ducts aren't clogged - I had this problem for a while and a warm wet washcloth held gently to the eyes for 20-30 seconds a day helps unclog them.

LASIK and PRK make me nervous as I do a contact sport (BJJ). I really don't like the thought of a weakened eyeball under these circumstances: my doctor pointed out years ago (when I first considered this) that I have a "healthy but deformed" eyeball. Given the fact that occasionally someone might wind up squishing down on my head with a great deal of force, the thought of having a bit of scar tissue there is not comforting. As it stands I lose a contact lens on the mats every couple of months (yay, disposables).

</comment><comment><USER31> I have worn contacts 7 days a week for over 20 years, can't stand wearing glasses.

Modern daily disposable contact lenses are so easy, probably takes me total of no more than 25 seconds a day to deal with them and once they are in I have great vision and cannot feel them at all. I literally cannot tell whether I am wearing them other than the fact I can see properly.

Last time I did the math on LASIK the cost was equivalent to about 5 years worth of lenses. The convenience and flexibility of lenses outweighs the risks of LASIK for me.

<comment><USER32> Modern dailies are very expensive, if you wear them almost every days it's 1k+/year in lenses.

<comment><USER33> I wear modern dailies (1-Day Acuvue Moist) and it costs me under $500/yr, and that's not including the discounts I get from my insurance.

I couldn't believe the positive impact dailies have had on my life - I can't even tell I'm wearing contacts, my dry eye is all but gone, and allergy season is now bearable to me. Even if it was $1k/yr, paying $3/day for perfect eyesight with no discomfort or hassle is still an absolute no brainer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Results may vary. But I had it about 10 years ago and while the glare/halos are noticeable (especially at night) they're a very minor thing. Would still have done it.

</comment><comment><USER35> i know it's off topic; however, i'd like to share my eyes improvements.

0\. light is important. mouse in complete darkness develops nearsightedness (-20 diopters iirc). outdoor kids got better eyes. -> nowadays i turn all my screens on full brightness level.

1\. vary sunglasses for different ranges. for example, i was at -4. i used -4 for driving car, used -2 for coding and used -1 for phones instead while still comfy.

2\. under sun, wear less power. notice during the day, i was still comfy wearing -3 for driving car and naked eyes for phone. the reduction can go as far as -2.

3\. if you can't do less near work, wear plus lens. plus lens therapy is a long term investment. it's slow; however, there's no side effect. i'm now at the point that i can drive motorcycle and coding with naked eyes. i started around new year, so it's almost a year. it's okay. it took me three decades to get to -4, a year is nothing.

NB: for 1 & 2, you can experiment using your old glasses. don't be afraid to use your old lenses. the worst that can happen to your life is that you get a slightly blurry vision for a minute. for 3: plus lens therapy. i prefer it to lasik, which has side effects and can degrade anyway. it's not instant, that's the feature -> if anything go bad, i can stop and things revert back gradually. with lasik, it's binary. you can't go back if shit happens. to be fair, lasik is not instant too, you need months for recovery.

<comment><USER36> A good way to check for item (0):

1\. Point your camera phone to your computer screen and compare the brightness with the surroundings. The 2 levels should somewhat match.

2\. Adjust as needed. Often it is a matter of having proper lighting in the room.

Most camera phones have very low dynamic range, so you'll instantly notice if the screen is way brighter (or darker) than the surroundings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Yeah, I got it done a couple of years ago.

I splurged and spent 7200 on possibly the most reputable place in the area, and they took great care of me.

The best advantages for me is that I can just wake up and go, and I can buy sunglasses/safety glasses easily, without spending lots of money on custom lenses. Plus when I wake up, I can just look around and figure out what time it is.

I don't really see downsides here, I'm sure that other people have worse experiences, but my experience has been a) don't skimp and b) be happy.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wore contacts for over 30 years. I had astigmatism and only one brand of contacts worked for me. That was great until the company discontinued them and their suggested replacements didn't work for me. I had LASIK and I've experienced none of the problems most people have. I used artificial tears for a couple of months after and now just occasionally. I would do it again in a heartbeat even though I need reading glasses.

</comment><comment><USER39> My optometrist confirmed what I've worried about for decades. We are finally at a point where there are older people who had LASIK 20+ years ago and it's not good. It complicates cataracts. It's also less effective to start with for people over 40. Glad I never got it. But then I had a thought. Since I'm past the age where my lens has hardened - can't focus up close - I asked if I could just get cataract surgery NOW. He said yes, and the lenses won't get cloudy later and I might never need glasses again. I asked about focus up close and he says there are some magical progressive lenses they can use - I'm not sure how that works and neither was he. Only problems: 1) It's 5K per eye and not covered by any insurance because its cosmetic. I think that's well worth the price. but 2) I have astigmatism which can be corrected but they have to get the lens within a couple degrees of the correct rotational angle or you'll need glasses anyway. He said there's about a 2-4 percent chance of that even with the best guy doing it.

So it's still glasses for now.

</comment><comment><USER40> 50 YO here. I started wearing prescription glasses a few years ago. And readers a few years before that.

Now, normally, I wear progressive lenses (far, middle + close) that enable me to read, drive, watch TV, etc without switching glasses. But for extended computer work I still fall back to plain readers.

Also, back before I started wearing the prescription progressive lenses, I had to use reading glasses to read my phone -- that was a pain. The progressive lenses are great just for this reason.

I don't think established Lasik tech will alleviate my need for reading glasses, so there doesn't seem to be much point now to go forward with surgery.

There are new procedures that purport to correct nearsighted/reading problems. But they are new (to me at least) so I want to wait and see how they perform over the long run.

On the other-hand, I experience some issues, such as diminished night vision, halos, and other stuff, that are related to wearing glasses today (mostly caused by reflection, smudges, and glare I guess). So, the common issues caused by surgery would probably be acceptable to me if I could figure out a way to stop needing reading glasses.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think many people forget the risks of using contact lenses. The risks of being blind after LASIK are extremly low, the risks of blindness due to an eye infection with lenses is higher (had a source for that, can't find it at the moment, on mobile). Even if you're very careful, you can never avoid to get bacteria on the inside of your lense, with potentially horrible effects.

From personal experience:

My girlfriend had LASIK a few months ago. We went for a slightly more expensive clinic, for the ease of mind. They tested extensively to make sure everything's alright before the surgery. The surgery itself was good. One eye was perfect after 1-2 days, the other one had problems that slowly disappeared. She had 20/20 or better immediately, but one eye stayed a bit blurry for 4-6 weeks, probably as she reacted bad to the steroids after surgery. Turns out she's allergic to steroids which she didn't know before. Luckily the doctors detected high eye pressure very soon, switched to other drops and lowered it. The right eye is still somewhat more sensitive than the left, although that's something she only feels after long days in front of the screen. Driving at night is also harder (but possible), although she'd always had problems with that.

Overall a great experience, for her not thinking about lenses or glasses outweighs any inconveniences she has now. Waking up and being able to see, diving without the fear of saltwater in the eyes, coming home late and not remembering to get lenses out are all amazing benefits for her.

It's still surgery, all surgeries have risks and need healing. Some people can leave the clinic after LASIK and see perfectly, for others healing takes a bit (my gf had to wait nearly a week before she could use a computer for several hours). But if you get it done in your late 20s you have a high chance of not needing glasses for several decades, sth very valuable.

</comment><comment><USER42> I just got my eyes done about 5 months ago at the office of the best doctor in San Francisco. My vision is 20/15 and I think the operation was a complete success. I had PRK done, but that is irrelevant in the discussion.

Interesting that I couldn't find any mentions of the actual laser used. The newer EX500 laser doesn't have this issue. According to my doctor, the problem with the older lasers is that they would flatten out the cornea. The flat edge is what causes the glare/halos. The newer laser actually rounds the edges so no more issues.

[https://www.myalcon.com/products/surgical/wavelight- refracti...](https://www.myalcon.com/products/surgical/wavelight-refractive- suite/EX500-Excimer-laser.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER43> I wear contacts, and I have glare, halos, double vision, and dry eyes. I can also run the risk of losing several hundred dollars in the blink of an eye.

Having to deal with my hard contacts on a daily basis is a royal PITA, and expensive as hell (special saline, contacts are several hundred each, also need hard contact cleaning and storage fluids).

If your eyesight sucks, you're just SOL, period. You have a plethora of bad choices available to you: Glasses, which aside from their stellar looks can break, get scratched, lost, and hurt to wear with headphones. Contacts, which require constant cleaning and care (especially if you need hard contacts). Lasic, which is a medical procedure with all of the attendant potential side effects.

That said, if Lasic were an option for me, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER44> I had custom LASIK done about 7 years ago where they cut the "flap" with a laser. After a month my vision stabilized but it was still not good enough, so they did a second "touch up" operation. I've had great vision ever since.

I even had an injury to my eye where a tree branch came full force into my eye, and there was no damage to the "flap".

I have had very little if any glare or halos symptoms.

Given this, in hindsight I would probably go with PRK because it seems to give the eye more structural integrity and possible more post-operation options?

In speaking to an opthamologist recently, she mentioned that lense implants are her preferred choice.

<comment><USER28> Although I had PRK done the first time(2010). I havejust had it done a 2nd time this week for 1 eye.

I didn't know this until recently, but apparently PRK is the only option if its been 1+ year since your first surgery (regardless of what your first time was).

I never liked the idea of the flap, so among many reasons, I had gone with the option without a flap the first time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I had LASIK done in 2005 (Perth, Australia). I was warned about the side effects (e.g. halos, night vision) before the surgery. I still consider it the best $5k I have ever spent. I'm 43 now and my eyesight is still perfect (I used contact lenses for years prior to the surgery, -7.0 in both eyes). My night vision is not as good as it was before the surgery, but compared to the complications I had with contact lenses, and the problems wearing glasses caused me as a kid, I'd get the LASIK again every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

<comment><USER46> Same experience with me (California). I was -7 or so in both eyes and now am about -.25. I got it at least 12 years ago and the improvement and quality of life increase is far greater than the $3k or $4k I spent. Throwing my coke bottle glasses in the trash on the way out of surgery filled me with an immense emotional satisfaction that I couldn't have predicted. Just sitting up from the operating table and seeing faces and making out the design on the wallpaper put a huge smile on my face.

<comment><USER47> I spent only $450 for Lasik (India)!!! That is for the customized lasik operation based on very shape of my eye!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I just got custom wavefront LASIK done at Stanford, and I'm very happy with the procedure.

Yes, I see halos at night, but they are "there" \-- they don't bother me at all. If anything, it's like the overused HDR bloom effect in video games in 2005. I can still see and drive perfectly fine at night.

They're also going away. It's been a week since my procedure, and they have been going away every day. It can take 3-6 months for vision to stabilize.

I didn't want to wear glasses, and now I don't, and I'm happy.

<comment><USER49> That sort of happens when first wearing glasses, too. I think it's like an unsharp mask filter applied by the brain to compensate for blurriness, which it has to unlearn over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I wonder how this compares to similar, but different procedures. I had PRK done 7 years ago, and it was probably the best $4000 I ever spent. It went perfect for me - no new issues. However, I did it one eye at a time, just in case!

PRK differs from LASIK in how the top layer of the cornea is removed. In LASIK, a flap is cut and peeled back, then put back in place at the end of the procedure. In PRK, the top layer is scraped off and has to grow back in, a process that takes several weeks and can be somewhat painful.

<comment><USER51> Somewhat painful? Try the most miserable four days of my life (not sure where several weeks came from but mine only took four days).

I had LASIK in one eye and PRK in the other (not as any sort of test, there were medical reasons, I would have preferred to have LASIK in both). The LASIK eye took roughly four hours to heal to point of no discomfort and the PRK eye took four days. My PRK eye sees about 20/15, and my LASIK eye sees about 20/20.

I would 100% do it all over again if given the choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I've been using daily contacts for years until I had a minor irritation in my eye for a few days, went to see a doctor, who told me I have an infection and I'm in real danger of losing my eye. Got antibiotics and luckily everything turned out OK.

I got the impression that eye doctors are not big fans of contacts, and that my situation wasn't uncommon.

Had a LASIK shortly afterwards, worked out OK, so far of course. I'm sure it has risks, but I haven't seen proof those are worse than contacts'.

<comment><USER53> Contacts got a lot better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> > glare, halos or other visual symptoms

As someone with LASIK, I'm not actually sure what these mean.... My gut reaction to reading this is, "Wait... do I have those?"

That being said, I do think its fair to say that we haven't studied the potential side effects of LASIK as much as you'd like to, but the fact remains that in doing so, you are accepting that there are risks.

If the risks aren't worth it to you to remove your eye impairments, then don't get LASIK?

<comment><USER55> > If the risks aren't worth it to you to remove your eye impairments, then > don't get LASIK?

Erm... obviously. Hence why it's important to run studies like this to understand what the risks _are_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I also underwent SMILE about 1.5 years ago. I had ~3.5 myopia in both eyes with ~1 astigmatism. Prior, I was using contacts for about 4 years, as well as glasses on off days and nights (after I came back home). My eyes were a tad bit drier than average (my eyes required lubricant eyedrops after a few hours of computer use if I wasn't well rested, for example).

Compared to contacts, my eyes are actually much less dry now. Contacts dried my eyes a lot. My eyes used to start getting dry and scratch by late afternoon/early evening. Compared to using glasses, it either is the same dryness or less dry. SMILE was a huge improvement for me, both for correcting my eyesight and slightly improving eye dryness.

For those who are considering: I was initially suggested PRK due to the potential downsides of LASIK but learned about, and ultimately opted to, SMILE. My mother had LASIK done at age 45 and she still is very happy with it. I had about a day of post-surgery burning sensation in the eyes but nothing afterwards. In the grand scheme of things, it was the easiest surgery I've ever had (and I had a few).

If you can afford it and SMILE is an option from a decent doctor, it will be one of the best investments you'll ever make.

</comment><comment><USER57> Well, pretty timely to have this today. I'm getting LASIK in less than 24h. Perfect to have second and third thoughts -.-

For anyone in the same situation I recommend to read all the way through the comments. The first ones are incredibly negative, and they keep getting better towards the end.

I've used glasses since forever. And never really worried too much about them. From the aesthetic pov I didn't care at all. Glasses have obviously some inconvenients, not going to list them now, but those never really troubled me. I just woke one day with the idea that I could as well get rid of them because getting new glasses/sunglasses every x years was going to cost more than just LASIK. This reasoning sounds incredibly stupid right now that I have to face the risks.

I got my eyes checked at Barraquer in Barcelona, and it's them who recommended me into it. Apparently, it's here where they developed LASIK, so I guess that's a big relief, not exempt of risk. Feels good that we are on the map for something science related though, so I guess I'm just finding more excuses to feel confident for tomorrow :P

Hopefully I can keep reading HN in the future...

</comment><comment><USER58> I've gotten custom/wavefront LASIK on two separate occasions.

The first time, left eye came out perfect: 4k hd quality, better than blu-ray.

Right eye however had noticeable visual aberration running diagonally that made it impossible to read for long periods. I adapted, but after a year I went back for a top up.

My second LASIK was easier, and my vision seemed promising. However, a few weeks later, I suddenly and without notice found my eye leaking like a sieve for maybe an hour. Needless to say I was a bit more than freaked out, but I got better fast, and over my next two visits to the LASIK centre found "nothing to be wrong". While my vision started to deteriorate, they thought it might recover after the swelling had subsided.

Six months later, and for my most recent catchup, they noticed a "corneal wrinkle". Got everyone in the joint to take a good look at my eye, and then they've lifted me up again to try to "smooth everything out". So far so good. 5/7 would do again.

</comment><comment><USER59> Data point: I had LASIK ten years ago. No halos or glare, but my eyes were a little dry for six months afterward. Unfortunately, now the effects are completely reversed and I'm back to the same exact prescription as I had to begin with. It's not that bad, in fact I can get by without glasses about 90% of the time, but it was a complete waste of $4500.

<comment><USER27> Wow, that sounds awful. Care to share a bit more detail?

What was your prescription before LASIK?

If you could get by without glasses 90% of the time, why did you have it done in the first place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I wish I'd never done it.

My night vision is full of terrible halos, something I wasn't warned about and completely ignored after the surgery.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is my opinion but the way LASIK consultations go, the results aren't clearly shared. From my understanding, the doctors should know with fairly accurate determination whether the laser you're paying for will result in light diffusion: they dilate your eyes so they know the diameter of your pupil and they know the diameter of the laser. The wider the laser, the more likely light won't pass damaged or original tissue. So I feel the operators know the odds they you'll experience defects but don't tell you. Instead, they "recommend" larger lasers. Personally, if defects are a certainty, then that information should be shared. The language used in these consultations make the buyer feel that the results are not certain, that no defects will likely happen when in fact, the operators know full well what defects you'll likely experience.

That said, I wish I had taken my chances with PRK.

</comment><comment><USER62> I got Lasik about 7-8 years ago and they said I could have issues described in the article for several months and in some cases it could affect your night vision for a few years (which it did). The symptoms subsided over a few years. My vision is now awesome. Were other people warned of these potential (temporary) issues?

</comment><comment><USER63> I did ReLEx SMILE at [https://www.smileeyes.de/?L=1](https://www.smileeyes.de/?L=1) since I didn't want a full flap and didn't want the pain of Epi-LASIK. First run they left some epithelial cells in the pocket which caused astigmatism. They fixed that with a flush. I'm left with some astigmatism of the left eye and overall 20/25 vision. It also took ~1 year to "stabilize" as I was having a lot of spouts of blurriness. Overall liveable but I guess I'd probably do the Epi-LASIK instead and just deal with the week+ of discomfort. I also noticed that I think the lens can still move as if I rub my eyes too much it seems my vision gets blurry but eventually "snaps" back.

</comment><comment><USER64> What do you expect when a laser cuts into your eye?

Joke aside, I'd like to know not just that these things happen but if the person who is experiencing these issues is more or less happy compared to before the corrective laser eye surgery. There are always potential complications to surgery but often times the outcome, including the complications, are positive for the patient. I know one person who needs to rest their eyes as it gets later in the evening/night because their eye apparently swells or is noticeably more difficult to focus due to the way the surgery happens but is generally okay otherwise (my understanding is that the laser cuts a flap under the iris or some part of the eye near the pupil and that cut may not always heal properly, leading to various issues).

<comment><USER65> > What do you expect when a laser cuts into your eye?

Technically, it's a femtosecond laser that's sculpting the surface of the lens of your eye using ablation (i.e. pulse of laser light disintegrates an area the diameter of laser).

A "3d scan" of your eye (tomography) done prior to surgery is done while sitting to create the surgical plan. But the lasik procedure is performed while laying down. And since the shape of your eye is a lot like a water balloon... the shape of your eye changes between sitting and standing.

A more accurate surgical plan / tomographic profile could (in theory) lead to better patient outcome simply by having both procedures done while standing.

<comment><USER64> Ah, interesting. I wonder why they don't do it standing up or at least in a brace with the head forward like they do some surgeries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I get asked constantly why I haven't done LASIK yet. My response, which is usually met with incredulous eyes, is that I find it too risky.

Starbursts and halos are bad enough, but some people do not get them. And halos can be mitigated to some extent, you can just avoid performing the procedure if pre-surgery exams find out that your pupil is too big.

Not sure if starbursts can be avoided. It must suck if your job involves staring at a screen all day (as mine does).

What is more concerning is the damage to the cornea. First, there is dry eyes. It's not a question if you are going to get dry eyes or not, is how much and if it will be enough to still maintain sufficient lubrication. The nerves are damaged when the flap is created, not all return. And that is serious, people have committed suicide over dry eyes.

Then there's the flap. The fact that a doctor can lift the flap again years after the procedure is very concerning. The cornea has a complex fibrous structure that never heals after the flap is created. You just have to hope that you are not subject to strong G forces. Or trauma, more generally.

At least the pre-surgery exam battery is complete enough nowadays that we can predict ablating too much of the cornea so that the eye's structural integrity is no longer compromised. This was at the expense of a few early adopters, though.

There is also the question of how the operated eye is going to age. There is just not enough data. If issues arise, these are usually blamed on older equipment. "Oh, that was a Nth generation Laser, it [did not have enough resolution, did not create the flap, was not wavefront, whatever]". Well then, when is the tech going to be "enough"? Last I checked, the resolution still wasn't too great. The cornea would look like the surface of the Moon under a microscope.

If I decide to do it eventually, it will be a LASEK. At least there won't be flap-related issues. A few weeks recovering time is nothing if it means avoiding entire classes of issues for the rest of my life.

<comment><USER66> I landed on the same side of the risk/value equation. Although my ophthalmologist showing me a picture of a guy who's eyeball exploded from a skiing accident may have also influenced me (I like to ski, and I do, on occasion experience rapid unscheduled deceleration associated with attempting to ski on my face :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> >> The study analyzed outcomes for two groups of LASIK patients. In the first group, which included 262 Navy personnel with an average age of 29.1, it was 43 percent reporting new symptoms.

I'm in the middle of a multi-year application process for a job in the armed forces. They are VERY suspicious of all laser eye surgeries. I had several tests specifically looking for evidence of surgery. They didn't find any, but they did find a tiny scar in my cornea left over from when I was a teenager. My point: think long and hard about laser eye surgery if there is any change that you may want to work with or for any armed service. You cannot hide these procedures.

Flip side: If they implement a draft, lasik might get you a pass.

<comment><USER68> Why that level of paranoia?

<comment><USER67> (1) G-forces. But it isn't just airmen, or people jumping out of planes. The 'flap' procedures leave a scar in the cornea. That scar is a weak point. Any impact, even being punched in the face, can crack along that weak point. They have seen a few of these over the decades. For pilots, the word is that flap procedures could see you limited to rotary-wing aircraft rather than jets. (50+% of military cockpits are in helicopters. It isn't that great a limitation unless you have TopGun dreams.)

(2) Future correction. Pilots cost upwards of 5mil to train. Maybe in 5/10 years your eyes aren't good enough any more and they want to send you for corrective surgery then. They want to know where they are starting.

(3) Catching cheats. There are a huge number of questions re eyes. They want to fish out anyone who may be fibbing about their medical history. A liar is worse than any medical condition. Basically, if you are caught you will be blacklisted for all the services.

<comment><USER68> Thank your for more detail than I was expecting!

Very informative

<comment><USER67> Lol. That's what happens after hours of worried discussion amongst candidates at a military medical facility. Lots of information based on shared stories and fleeting comments by doctors in camo. Everyone wants to chat so as to confirm their understandings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I've been considering PRK for quite some time, but am a little iffy on it due to the recovery time. I see some people saying it takes 3 weeks, others saying 7 weeks for a full recovery. Like many others here, I'm a developer so I have to look at a screen for a significant portion of the day for work. Do these recovery times mean no working at all, or just that it may be strained? I don't really get enough vacation time to be off work for that long :/

<comment><USER70> For me, I was okay to code with larger fonts, frequent breaks, and lots of eye drops (good for healing anyway) after about 7 days. At one month I was 20/15, and no issues.

Omega 3 supplements help healing by helping tears coat better--can knock days off the re-epithelialization period. You should take those religiously.

I'm very happy I got PRK. Allergies, convenience, seeing my dirty shower; all better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Reports of this, and having a friend suffer from similar effects after laser eye surgery years ago, have always kept this as a "look again in a few years" thing for me.

As I've aged, my prescription has got stronger (I'm long sighted), and I've realised these effects can be caused by stronger spectacles too. Long term contact lens use can also commonly cause symptoms.

With hindsight I wish I'd just gone ahead in my 20s or 30s!

</comment><comment><USER72> I haven't had LASIK, but I've always been bothered somewhat by glare/halos when outdoors at night.

In the last few years, it's become worse due to the super-bright LED street lamps that are going in everywhere. Not only are they brighter but they don't seem to bother putting shades/lenses/diffusers on them, so the LEDs themselves are directly in your line of vision. Horrible!

</comment><comment><USER53> For the unaware, you can now get 1 month sleep in contact lenses. No removing every night!

Shits works!!!!

I own an online eye glass store and rarely wear my own frames.

</comment><comment><USER73> I have -7.5 and -8 on my L/R eyes and I've considered LASIK multiple times growing up (got my glasses when I was ~3 yrs).

But recently (After getting a job), I've grown less and less attached to the procedure and don't intend to have it in the foreseeable future. (complications and side effects make me feel that what I have right now it is not too bad).

</comment><comment><USER74> > The researchers cautioned that the study may not generalize to the LASIK > population as a whole because of its small sample size and short follow- > period, which was typically three months.

The short follow-period is a problem with the study. I had halos for the first few months and dry eyes for the first year. Nowadays (~4 years later) everything is fine.

</comment><comment><USER75> Is anyone here using ortho-k lenses? I've replaced my usual soft contacts and been wearing them for half a year now and it's so much easier on the eyes. Although I still see slight halos and by the evening my vision is noticeably worse, I can't complain. And I have an option to undo all this, unlike some poor LASIK patients.

</comment><comment><USER76> Had lasik about 5 years ago (at 30) and still believe it was a great decision. Yes, I don't have great night vision, but wearing glasses or contacts had the same effect (but much, much worse), so overall it's a win. Not having to deal with glasses or contacts is such an improvement, it was worth every penny.

</comment><comment><USER77> I had surgery with my first salary more or less when I was 21. It took a year or two for the halo effects to disappear.

My night vision feels like it's like "4x" worse than it it was but it is really hard to tell. Seeing in the dark is difficult in the first place and I don't have any hard data.

</comment><comment><USER47> I got Lasik on 13th oct(40 days before), I am quiet satisfied with the result. The only side effect is early morning dry eyes and minor fluctuation in vision of left eye. According to doctor, I will recover them soon. By the way i got complete 6/6 score!!!

</comment><comment><USER78> I'm really interested to understand which of these have just had spherical correction models applied (ie non-wavefront).

Given that most of these in the article are higher order effects, it only makes sense that if you simply ignore higher order error, you get bad results.

</comment><comment><USER79> I got my eyes fixed with LASIK a while back. I noticed glare and halos for a while, but they subsided. Overall I've been very satisfied with the how it went. I wish that more medical procedures worked this way.

<comment><USER80> What makes LASIK differently from other medical procedures? Don't those work, too?

<comment><USER81> LASIK is purely mechanical and generally well-understood and the improvement is directly measurable and involves applying a particular fix and then you're done.

Dentistry can be like that too. As can some orthopedic stuff like setting a broken bone or replacing a hip. But most of the rest of medicine isn't like that.

Suppose you have high blood pressure or low blood pressure or balance issues or cancer or joint pain or acid reflux or arthritis or a lack of energy or are overweight. Doctors can give advice and prescribe treatment for any of those but most of it doesn't work very well. The best case might involve continuously taking pills and changing behavior for the entire rest of your life. There's very little where the doctor says "just do this one thing, let me turn this knob over here, and you're all better." In a lot of cases they can't even tell what's wrong, much less how to fix it, much less precisely how much it's going to _cost_ to fix it.

In large part because LASIK is optional and usually not covered by insurance, it tends to be a FAR better experience than most other medicine. The pipeline is ridiculously optimized to make the operation fast and efficient and cheap and transparent. It would be awesome to have the equivalent of LASIK centers for every other kind of medicine, rather than the sort of confuseopoly we've got.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> According to my previous eye doctor, most patients just fail to fully cooperate with and follow the conditions that exist before and after the LASIK surgery and that's why they end up with bad side effects.

</comment><comment><USER83> I got LASIK in college. My side effects were minor except for the fact it wore off after 10 years. Now I'm back to wearing glasses since you can't wear contacts after LASIK.

</comment><comment><USER84> I had LASIK done two years ago, one of the best things i've ever done for myself. Couldn't be happier despite a few small side affects, quality of life has improved.

</comment><comment><USER85> My vision is constantly getting worse every year. I can just change glasses. I thought about surgery, but what I would do next year? Surgery again?

</comment><comment><USER86> This isn't hacker or startup related. It's just amazon news being upvoated by.... Well hang on, now that makes me wonder. Does Bezos make more or less money by people getting laser eye work done?

</comment><comment><USER87> I had LASIK i 2013. This was right after I got new job. I took the most expensive option because I didnt want to risk my eye because of few pennies.

Outcome: I could see perfectly day after. I had halo during nights but this gradually faded away to something insignificant.

I cant speak for all people, and I cant comment on how this will end up in 5 or 10 years but I am really happy I did this.

I used to wear contact lenses that went dry after half a day. If I spent the day out I had to bring with me couple of pair of lenses + 1 more for safety. Why so many? Some lenses no matter how I try to fit on my eye just glided down and fell. I used to spend 5-10 minutes every morning just to get them to fit. It was such an daily obstacle.

Aircon blowing from the car? Lens dry.

Now I dont even think about the LASIK surgery or lenses. I just moved on with life

</comment><comment><USER88> Uh, yes? These are known and common side effect and has been for years. How is it news?

<comment><USER89> From TFA:

> The results [of a previous study], published in October 2014, showed that > some patients developed problems that adversely affected their day-to-day > lives, such as difficulty driving at night or in sunshine. But it was such a > small number — less than 1 percent — of the patients in the study.

> On Wednesday, the group released a follow-up report in JAMA Ophthalmology > that provides more sobering information. The study suggests that the > percentage of people who undergo LASIK and wind up with new visual symptoms > — such as double images, glare, halos or starbursts — may be much higher.

> One interesting component of this study was that the survey showed that the > percentage of people with symptoms may be much higher than what has been > previously reported in studies involving direct interviews with health-care > professionals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Better than being blind.

My dad had been just letting his cataracts go, since he's the stereotypical stubborn person who doesn't like to go to the doctor till it's too late. So, one morning he woke up and panicked because he was effectively blind.

He somehow managed to get a hold of my sister (I was away from home; she lived in the same neighborhood luckily) who helped him get an appointment for LASIK. Long story short, he ended up with nearly 20/20 vision afterwards.

<comment><USER91> Huh? LASIK isn't a treatment for cataracts. The surgeon removes the lense and implants an artificial one.

[https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/what-is-cataract- sur...](https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/what-is-cataract-surgery)

<comment><USER90> Well, fuck. I stand corrected.

My Dad says shit that he makes up in his own head by reinterpreting what others have told him and I just believe him without bothering to verify unless I know it's incorrect; and even then sometimes I just don't bother.

For instance, in this case he probably saw or heard the term LASIK so much by advertising that it just stuck in his head and he glazed over whatever the doctors were telling him when he went in, and he's been repeating that same thing ever since. I believed him, because I don't have eye problems and was never curious enough to look further.

Shame on me.

<comment><USER92> What your dad got is an IOL: intraocular lens. These things are pretty amazing these days; they can correct myopia and astigmatism, eliminate cataracts, and eliminate the need for reading glasses too because the new lens is focus-able (in the ones that are "accommodating"). I'm thinking of getting these in 5-10 years, since I'm just starting to have problems with reading now; by that time, new artificial lenses will be a perfect solution to my eyesight problems I can expect to have at that age.

Your dad sounds like one of these annoying non-technical people who hears one technical term (e.g. LASIK) and then applies that in blanket fashion to anything remotely related. He probably calls Android phones "iPhones", and he probably calls laptop computers "iPads", and he probably calls the Internet "AOL".

<comment><USER90> Lmao, yeah, that second paragraph is spot on.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone want to help me write a secure DNS proxy? - <AUTHOR> The idea would be to: 1) Set the DNS proxy as localhost 2) Proxy all DNS requests with a web server via HTTPS REST API<p>If you want to help out contact me at ron.reiter at gmail dot com. <comment><USER2> Might I suggest, before you begin, looking for what you might create online to see if someone else has beat you to it? Look into DNSCrypt.</comment>


Ask HN: Building an MVP without a designer in 2017? - <AUTHOR> For a developer building an MVP, what tools do you recommend to use for a project, without a designer? - App is not a throw-away project, can be incremented into a professional, beautiful app - No designer available as stated above - A designer WILL be hired in the future<p>The only options I can think of: - Bootstrap / Semantic-ui (Can these be customized and used for years ahead or do they require extirpation) - Copy other designs and pray your code won't be to hard to turn into a great design in the future <comment><USER2> You are probably asking what frameworks to use. But I suggest you should first use Sketchapp or Adobe Experience Design (at least these two I used and liked a lot).

They allow you to do some UI mocks/basic design with very little effort.

You can find and import in them Boostrap templates providing you with all the elements you need. Then the next step I suggest to do is to pick the basic colors you want to use for normal text, action buttons ... This way you will make sure that in your app you will use only those colors providing a consistent color scheme.

And then you can start to design your interface. Both apps provide simple tools to use and with very little learning curve for doing simple design.

For me (even if I am not a designer) doing this helps me focus on understanding how the elements that I want to build integrate with each other on UI side. And also forces me to focus on using the same elements and the same colors.

For both apps you can also find a lot of free designs provided by various authors from which you can inspire.

You can also browse [https://dribbble.com](https://dribbble.com) or [https://www.behance.net](https://www.behance.net) to be inspired by designs that you like.

<comment><USER3> I really struggle to design things in a design app. If I have to design something with Bootstrap I just browse for a bit of inspiration on Dribbble then start coding.

I'd love to be able to design things in PS or Sketch but I find it takes 5x as long as it'd take me to make something by hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a front end developer, I would say if you need an MVP to get out the door and you've got a bunch of plates in the air, then yes, Bootstrap (and also Font Awesome!) works just fine for all the things that you don't really care to worry about at the present moment. Its also easy enough to remove if you do eventually bring in a UX person or a designer to refine things.

That being said, the little things that you can do make a huge difference between a site that looks like its made with bootstrap vs a site that has a bit more going on under the design hood. Pay a bit of attention to your fonts and line heights, add in -webkit-font-smoothing, and lock down your colors before you start (e.g. black, white, brand colors, grays, etc.) Consistency will make your life so much easier to get that UI looking amazing, and it takes about 15 minutes or less to write down some variables (assuming you're using a CSS preprocessor). Also, optimize your assets (images, etc) and make sure you have fallbacks if something doesn't load fast.

Lastly, make sure you know what you (roughly) want your app to look like on mobile, tablet and desktop before just diving in to Bootstrap- even just roughly sketching out boxes on paper helps me sometimes with that. I like to use the Chrome emulator for a rough idea of any device as I work on phone, tablet and desktop in either orientation as well.

All in all, what I've described you can easily implement in a a few hours to a few days (depending on the complexity of your site) and makes a huge difference. Once you're making millions, you can hire a great designer to push your site to the next level!

</comment><comment><USER5> Buy an UI. I've been building digital stuff for twenty years. In the end, just buy an UI with the tech stack you're familiar with. Themeforest, CodeCanyon, whatever. Especially if it's a enterprise dashboard/admin tool. Just buy the most well built and most contributed to UI and master it so that you can re- deploy it over and over again. You've got more important things to do.

<comment><USER6> Yes. I did this for my last client, much easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bootstrap with material design is my suggestion here. Material is versatile enough for both iOS and Android, and it translates decently well to web. The color palette and font stack are both easy to work with.

[https://mdbootstrap.com/material-design-for- bootstrap/](https://mdbootstrap.com/material-design-for-bootstrap/)

</comment><comment><USER8> If you're going to hire a designer in the future, then just use Bootstrap for now.

</comment><comment><USER9> You could check html5up for free templates to start with.</comment>


The future of O3D - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2010/05/future-of-o3d.html

<comment><USER2> Ouch, this is very disappointing. O3D was technologically better approach than WebGL.

JavaScript is a perfect scripting/glue language, but unfortunately it still sucks at numerical computations.

Yes, even with all the massive progress that happened recently with V8/TraceMonkey/Carakan. Try working with large arrays and you will weep.

Well, good news is at least this will force JS engine developers to improve this so far neglected aspect.

<comment><USER3> Ugh, JavaScript! We'll be stuck with JavaScript forever! Time for a new browser to be developed. But I doubt that will happen. Sad to see no major new operating systems, pc architectures, browsers being developed. Now it's all: \- linux, osx, windows \- intel \- ff, webkit, opera Yep, people standing on the shoulders of giants but we need some new giants.

<comment><USER4> NativeClient will support other languages and through a new plugin API, they'll be able to link up with HTML, CSS just like JS can.

Only the other browsers have to agree to implement it. Minor little problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reposting from another submission of this: This is a little annoying. Google had not said a word about O3D for months and they just announce now that they want to drop the plugin. I think a better idea would have been to use the plugin as a way to provide WebGL and o3d to older browsers until WebGL is widespread. Some of the O3D features are not even possible in WebGL.

EDIT: the google group thread explaining about this: [http://groups.google.com/group/o3d-discuss/browse_thread/thr...](http://groups.google.com/group/o3d-discuss/browse_thread/thr..).

EDIT: Google reiterated that they prefer that Google Frame implements WebGL for IE instead of turning O3D into a complete HTML5 implementation to support api O3D/WebGL developers need.

</comment><comment><USER6> Whee. Hopefully this will help accelerate WebGL-adoption even further and we can avoid getting locked in to yet another proprietry plugin, in the form of Unity.

I've a feeling that good tools and engines for WebGL-based are going to be needed though.

<comment><USER4> I thought they'd use O3D together with NativeClient which is open source. I doubt Google would bother with some proprietary plugin, their entire OS is open source.

NativeClient would make plugins second nature to the web. They could be downloaded and installed as seamlessly as javascript frameworks.

But since they have no guarantee that NativeClient will be adopted as a standard, they're not putting all of their eggs in that basket. Apparently they can get the speed out of WebGL some other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really hope this takes off. I've been wanting to get into making some 3D games for a while, and being able to do it in the browser would be _awesome_</comment>


10gen's response to MongoDB's slams - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/11/hacker-news-and-the-damage-don.php

<comment><USER2> I had hoped that this article would be a focused point by point response to the anonymous pastebin rant.

Unfortunately, it was less about 10gen or MongoDB, and more about the efficacy of Hacker News as a forum for disseminating information. Plug in any controversial technology and the article sounds about the same: Al Gore on Global Warming vs a report claiming to debunk it, Microsoft on Silverlight vs a report claiming that it's no longer supported, James Randi on his $1,000,000 challenge vs someone claiming that their version of ESP really is real.

" _... the reaction on HN is heartening. Though it's disappointing it made it to the front page at all, it also seems that the bulk of the audience at HN took it with the grain of salt it deserved._ "

I'm unimpressed with this assessment. HN participants were quick to identify the key issues of provenance while simultaneously picking apart the claims. Regardless of whether this was a hoax -- I personally think it was an exaggerated rant of someone who was seriously frustrated -- isn't this how peer review is supposed to work? Someone makes a claim. The claim and the claimant are assessed. Conclusions are drawn. There's nothing disappointing about it.

In my opinion, HN worked efficiently and quickly to debunk or validate the claims. The article needed to reach the front page in order to achieve a critical mass of participation in order to discover a consensus which seems to be that many of the claims were overblown or based on out-of-date information, but some were real. This conclusion was validated by 10gen's president Max Schireson,

" _... rather than deflecting the entire thing, Schireson and Horowitz were fairly candid about MongoDB's shortcomings. Of the nine sections, Schireson says that "some are definitely valid, some we haven't heard or seen."_ "

Rather than feeling disappointed, the newsworthy aspect of this episode is _how well_ the HN community and moderation system worked in this case, and how reasonable 10gen was in their response. Many companies (e.g. British Petroleum on the Deep Horizon disaster) will continue to spin the news even when there is video evidence.

It would have been nice if ReadWriteWeb focused on that rather than attempting to paint a negative picture of community sourced news.

<comment><USER3> "There's nothing disappointing about it."

There's a lot disappointing about it. HN, like it or not, has gotten to a point where many people use it for tech news and don't read comments. When a story makes it to the top of HN, it gets tweeted to an audience of about 40K people - who generally don't see the comments at all. (links go straight to stories, not to the HN site.)

So there's a huge potential for misinformation when a piece like this makes it to the front page at all.

The peer review worked, but in my opinion a better system wouldn't even put this in front of a large enough audience to matter. It was _an anonymous pastebin_ \- it's not like this was debunking something on CNet or RWW that would have been widely seen anyway.

<comment><USER4> I don't see that as "disappointing" for HN regulars.

We vote on things that are interesting to discuss, not to indicate there's any validity to the article. If non-discussion-participants are relying on the voting mechanism to provide "accurate tech news", they've only got themselves to blame for the "huge potential for misinformation".

<comment><USER5> It is disappointing to me as well.

People should be upvoting articles based on quality, not headline-bait or baseless rants (no data of bugs, no logs, etc) or rants where the person is oblivious (locks are in the docs).

Unfortunately, I can't downvote links. Like other sites, I can only ignore it for so long before it's drowned in noise (lack of interesting _quality_ links).

<comment><USER2> Many submissions don't make it to the front page given what I've seen on "new", but here we had a rant that - like it or not - made a number of serious allegations against MongoDB; some number of which, after examination by HN regulars, were _confirmed_ by 10gen in a follow-up piece by RWW.

I don't really understand your position or complaint - are you suggesting that the anonymous nature of the source is sufficient to disqualify it outright? Who determines 'baselessness', isn't that a consensus process? Are you commenting on a general feeling that HN promotes a lower number of quality links then "in the earlier days"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The main point of the Pastebin rant is the claim that Mongo's development standards are insufficient for mission-critical software (such as databases).

So I looked through Mongo's change logs and one of the first things I saw for version 2.0.0 is a "huge" issue: "reIndex() on secondary drops all indexes" <https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-3866>

This sounds like a bad bug for a database to have. And in this article 10gen president says that data loss hasn't been a problem since 1.8, which seems to contradict their own change log....

<comment><USER7> I think most people think of data loss as data that is gone forever.

That doesn't excuse a large bug like this from existing, but it doesn't contradict his assertion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> MongoDB is a very ambitious, very new, and very large piece of software. Betting your company on something that meets that description entails significant risk.

If MongoDB makes it possible for you to do something unique, that no other proven solution would allow, it might be worth the risk.

If you used MongoDB because you heard it's the latest hip technology, and your company suffers, you made a stupid mistake that you'll hopefully learn from.

<comment><USER9> right. read the doc beforehand, and for financial data use the time proven relational dbs. they're "slow" for a reason.

for massive user generated content where big numbers of statistics come into play, and noone would die if you lose their hard-composed 140 char tweet, use transaction- and lock-free, easily-sharded, rarely flushed to disk stores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was quite impressed with how MongoDB handled everything. They were quick to respond in an intelligent (read: not hot air) manner, admitted that their product still has some shortcomings that they're working on. I wish more companies were as honest.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I expected a lot of defensiveness/spin when I spoke with them. But really, not a lot of that at all. They hedged just the tiniest bit about data loss, but were very forthright. As a reporter, I really can't say how refreshing that is or how infrequently you see it.

<comment><USER11> Which is surprising considering how positive 10gen looks coming out of this thing. A clear sign of maturity on their part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _A single-sourced, anonymous, piece like this one wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be making the front page of widely read publications._

Is this something HN can fix?

When I vote something up (as I did with the article mentioned), I'm thinking "this seems interesting", not "this seems authoritative and well sourced". The idea that someone might go through the effort of writing something like this as a "prank" didn't even enter my mind. Perhaps it might help for there to be some short-circuit mechanism for publicly flagging false stories which are found to be blatantly fabricated (or is it a rare enough occurrence that it doesn't matter)?

<comment><USER13> _A single-sourced, anonymous, piece like this one wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be making the front page of widely read publications._

Shouldn't it be? I think HN was perfectly fine in this regard. There are a lot of companies that aren't 10gen that would take this, go to a court, and try and dig up the person who wrote the article to sue them for libel, whether the article is true or not.

Just because in this case it was a hyperbolistic rant, doesn't mean there won't be a situation in the future where there's valid points being raised against a company that might retaliate against the author.

And as has been noted, the first comments on the article were counterpoints to it.

<comment><USER3> "There are a lot of companies that aren't 10gen that would take this, go to a court, and try and dig up the person who wrote the article to sue them for libel, whether the article is true or not."

Please show me the cases of a company taking someone to court for libel for making technical complaints such as this.

It happens _all the time_ on blogs and in mailing lists where people sound off like this about products (rightly or wrongly) and I have not heard of a single, solitary case of a person being taken to court for libel by a tech company.

By the way - the odds are that any company that tried that would lose, not only in court but also in public opinion.

Other companies may not handle it as well as 10gen - but I've yet to see a company try to take someone to court.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My impression is that people who use MongoDB for what it is good for tend to love it, mostly because it is "developer friendly." I use MongoDB a lot, and at least that is my take.

Soon after I saw the rant, I blogged about how I work around some MongoDB issues. Also, anyone who uses MongoDB without carefully reading the documentation (apparently like the _ranter_ ) is going to have problems.

</comment><comment><USER15> For any software you will find an unhappy customer to tell you how horrid the install was... Sometimes it's because the software is bad, software just inadequate, also the problem can be in the customer's environment...

What matters is what kind of mission the software successfully accomplished and how.

</comment><comment><USER16> I thins the rumour whose start because oraccle make own Nosql database. For me Mongodb is great</comment>