• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    So given Dr. Glaucomflecken is an opthalmologist, I’m at least 37.3% sure he meant her eyeglass prescription in diopters. Isn’t that right, Johnathan?

  • null@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m putting on my needs context hat and standing next to the needs context sign.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Comment refers to the girl’s eyeglass prescription, not a ranking of her attractiveness.

      Based on the distortion visible in her glasses, her prescription is approximately -1.00 to -1.50 diopters. Severely nearsighted prescriptions would cause the wearer to appear to have much smaller eyes; farsighted prescription would cause the eyes to appear larger.

    • Redacted@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The doctor is saying what her likely rx is, the responder i think assumes hes talking about her attractiveness out of 10, or is just being a snarky dick.

  • Emopunker@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Hi, Feddit admin here. I would like to apologize for B-TR3E’s behavior and have given them a temporary instance ban for their misbehavior not only here but on other comms as well.

    Their misbehavior was brought to my attention and it was enough to take action since we expect our users to behave regardless of which instance they are on (at least when it comes to common courtesy).

  • sangeteria@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This interaction truly tickled me in a way that I had to comment lol, even if it’s not furthering the convo. Great post!

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      White? Or is it the background for the time left in the quarter you meant? The scores appear to be white on blue and white on black. Not sure why they did the WNBA logo to be on orange though. The shot clock being on red makes sense to me as it is the “imminent danger”. (Probably could just do black on white for it though)

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Diopter was my first reading too, and my account isn’t even “Dr. Glaucomflecken”.

      • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Guy is a social media actor shorts comedian and is pretty based. So not only would he not say something like shitty that, he wouldn’t say it publicly. On yt he has 1.27m subscribers.

    • DaGeek247@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      My reading of it following the ethans point of view first. People are different. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Might depend on the material. I have -3.5dpt on both sides and my glasses have half the width and glare. Or are those some random units again?

    • Redjard@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I assumed he’d estimated it based on how distorted the face appears behind the glasses. I do that all the time.

      At this angle it’s hard for me to do that, since I usually use the edges of the face to estimate it. negative glasses pull the line inwards, positive outwards. I can reliably tell when someone is wearing fake glasses (0 strength) for example, and probably estimate strength within 30% of the actual value.

      If the image was higher res maybe I could estimate this case too. Or this professional optometrist is just a lot better at it than I am.


      Strong negative glasses: (Note the faces contours in the glasses appearing well inside the faces contours around the glassed)

      Fake glasses:

      Positive glasses:


      PS: Searching for generic terms yields 100% fake glasses, so I took a specific person I remember having strong glasses for myopia.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        PS: Searching for generic terms yields 100% fake glasses, so I took a specific person I remember having strong glasses for myopia.

        Just love it thanks

      • DaGeek247@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        This is so cool. Thank you for sharing how to do that.

        At this angle it’s hard for me to do that, since I usually use the edges of the face to estimate it

        This is a screenshot of a photo, but you can still see the left side offset if you zoom in. The original photo likely has much better quality to see it with.

      • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Just looked in the mirror… Checks out! :)

        Thanks for the explanation. And yeah, on the op picture you can’t see any of that clearly, so he needs to have serious practice for that statement.

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Going for “I see you” with a plausible but bullshit unit name but yours works too. Maybe they keep getting into accidents and landing in the ICU because of poor eyesight.

          • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Aaah… So ist not the original prescription, rather the hit count. Like snipers carve lines in their rifle.

            Now it all comes together!