this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
503 points (99.6% liked)

You Should Know

45601 readers
1136 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As one meta-analysis put it:

It’s estimated that an increase of one hour per day of outdoor time could reduce the occurrence of myopia in children by 45%.

Make sure your kids spend time outside, folks!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

I spent 90% of my early childhood outdoors. Didn't work.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 hours ago

but my electronic image generator makes bam bam noise, must spend more money for more RAM

[–] moseschrute@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Does it work for adults too?

[–] Little8Lost@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

It probably helps against making it worse. My father always told about the 30-30-30 rule.

Every 30 minutes

For 30 seconds

Looking at least 30 Meters into the distance

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

No. Interestingly once myopia does start developing this doesn't seem to slow the progression. It seems to be good for prevention and that's it

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 hours ago

No, it has to do with growth. An adult eye no longer grows significantly.

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Good try child sports teams. I ain't touching that grass unless you make me.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Sometimes I wonder if people see numbers like 45% and think "OMG, 45% chance!" instead of "small number * 1.45 = another small number."

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Considering that a fairly large percentage of children develop myopia (as high as 80-90% in some countries) a 45% reduction would be fairly significant, no? Or am I missing something

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

where are you getting these numbers.. from what I can see, the global average was 23% in 2000 and 34% today.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

The 80-90% claim seems to be repeated in various areas on the internet, including by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which I assume to be reputable:

Over recent decades, the prevalence of myopia has skyrocketed, particularly in Asia. In countries like China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, up to 80-90% of teenagers and young adults are now myopic.

Of course these local averages are still consistent with a lower global average

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 20 points 17 hours ago
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 31 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

My eyes have been terrible since 1st grade. My prescription got as high as 9s.

Then I got cataract surgery on one eye, and I can see nearly perfectly without glasses for the first time in my life. This summer, I'm getting the other one done, and I won't have to wear glasses anymore, for the first time in my life.

Anyway, the point is: As I was talking to the eye surgeon, and mentioned my bad eyesight, he told me why: I have the eyeballs of a man who is 7'2" tall, jammed into my 5'11" skull. Apparently, I have enormous eyes, which nobody has ever mentioned to me, other than one brief girlfriend who used to comment on my gigantic green eyes.

If I had to get something big from a 7'2" inch man, why did it have to be eyeballs?

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 14 points 13 hours ago

You were made for anime, not office work

[–] RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

If we take your eyeballs and take my teeth ("You have the roots of a 6'5" man" inside my 5'4" female body) we have the start of a good build!

Which of us is Doctor Frankenstein though?

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Wow I didn't realize that cataract surgery can improve your vision that dramatically. I thought cataracts surgery was something typically reserved for seniors to prevent foggy vision

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They fully replace the eyes' lenses, so they can give you lenses that correct your vision. It's just not a great idea to do surgery for something that can still be corrected with glasses.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

It’s just not a great idea to do surgery for something that can still be corrected with glasses.

Well I generally agree, there are people who elect to get laser eye surgery. Is this procedure generally considered more risky than laser eye surgery?

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Well, yeah, I'm old, and there were cataracts in both eyes, but one went bad real fast, over the course of a few months. The doc told me that it's kinda rare, but it happens. What was weird is that it only happened in one eye, so at least I could see with my one good eye, but if it happened to that eye too, before I could get the surgery, I'd be screwed. I literally wouldn't be able to see well enough to drive, read, anything.

So the new lens corrected for any bad eyesight, more or less. I haven't had it tested now that it's fully healed, but it probably isn't perfect 20/20, but it's close. I have a contact in my other eye, which is still at a 9, so very bad. It also has a light cataract.

Now I can see the difference between the two eyes. In my new eye, colors are brighter and sharper. In my other, cataract eye, colors are slightly, but noticeably muted. I probably wouldn't even have noticed it, if I didn't have the new eye for comparison.

I've also noticed that late at night, when I'm tired but still watching TV, I get double vision. I have to consciously focus. The doc warned me that having a good eye, and a contact lens eye would mess with my vision, and I think this is what he was talking about.

The doc said that now that I've had one done, the insurance will probably spring for the second one, even if it isn't necessary yet. That means I'll have nearly perfect vision, and maybe need reading glasses. I use reading glasses with my new eye, but if I don't have them, it isn't a big deal, I see well enough for most stuff.

Sorry to yak so much about it, but It's kind of exciting, being able to see so well for the first time, as an old person, and I don't really have anyone else to tell it to that would care.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That’s fascinating. Is it typical for cataract surgery to cause near 20-20 vision or is this something that just happened to you because you have a unique eye shape?

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

No, the doc said this would get pretty close. I don't think they can ever predict exactly where your vision is going to land, but he knew it would be close enough for reading glasses, which I never go anywhere without anyway, even with contacts. They are replacing your lens, so why replace with just a clear lens that is the same as your poor vision, that has to be corrected with supplemental lenses, when you can just replace the lens with a correct one, and fix the entire problem at once.

Of course, an immoral eye doctor might want to fix the blurry cataract, but keep your eyesight poor so they can continue to sell you glasses and contacts.

So I was expecting an improvement, and it certainly got darn close. Closer than I've experienced for most of my life.

BTW, it also wasn't really painful at all. It was uncomfortable the first day, but not itchy or painful, much less so the next day, and was pretty normal in 48 hours. I took a Tylenol/Advil combo, and drops they gave me.

[–] _donnadie_@feddit.cl 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They can't predict with 100% accuracy, because vision isn't a completely objective matter as it also takes into account your brain's interpretation of the image, but they can get pretty close. The exams you took probably measured your eye's axial length, your cornea's keratometry, diameter and other measurements.

Your ophthalmologist then selects the formula that best suits your eye (there's different mathematical models for different cases of myopia, hypermetropia and how extreme they are) and then the lens' power is calculated according to the measurements that were taken. Usually the device that takes your exam already does like 80% of the job (in the mathematical side of things), but your doctor uses their criteria to define the final IOL and from where it'll be inserted during surgery*.

It's pretty cool to take that exam. In my country I used to take it for patients that were going into eye surgery.

* It usually means a little bit more math

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Is this procedure ever performed on someone with healthy cataracts to improve their eyesight?

[–] wibble@reddthat.com 2 points 17 hours ago

Amazing! Congratulations on your new eyesight!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia says that both terms exist in English? Not a native speaker; I think I have seen "nearsightedness" more often in English but my first language's term for it translates to "shortsightedness". 🤷‍♂️

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (4 children)

IDK why it would say that, I'm a native speaker and the two terms have different meanings. Short-sightedness refers to not planning for long-term problems.

Edit: looking at what comes up in search, I see it showing up that way. I guess words change if we use them incorrectly for long enough. I'd be awfully confused if someone started talking about my short-sightedness as anything other than a flaw in my problem-solving abilities.

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I guess words change if we use them incorrectly for long enough.

Looking at the etymology, it appears that short sighted started as the medical term, with it's relation to foresight coming later. It's also older than nearsighted.

It may be less common in modern contexts, but it's definitely a "correct" use.

Also: all words are made up and the points don't matter.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 hours ago

ok, "Kurzsichtigkeit" in German definitely has both meanings without this causing confusion in practice

[–] solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago

Both terms depend on context. If you talk about someone's myopic or short sighted plan to earn money you know they're referring to a CEO.

[–] makingrain@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

We say short-sighted in Britain.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I was outside a ton when I was younger and I still have myopia. These things happen.

[–] DreasNil@feddit.nu 2 points 17 hours ago

You might have had a higher degree of myopia if you hadn't spent all that time outdoors.

[–] quips@slrpnk.net 6 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

One hour of outdoor time per day is not a modest increase

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 19 hours ago

For some people it is

[–] nope@jlai.lu 91 points 1 day ago (9 children)

I was outside a lot and still got myopia :3

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

Congrats on the luck

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Hold up now. I grew up in the 80s when we spent the whole day outside, and I wore thick ass lenses all through grade school.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (4 children)

"Reduces chances" does not mean "prevents"

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MrWrinkles@leminal.space 5 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

"Also, while various theories such as increased light exposure, release of dopamine from retina, increased depth of field have been suggested to explain the protective effect of outdoor time, the mechanism remains to be elucidated"

Correlation is not causation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 8 points 1 day ago

I'm pretty sure short-sightedness is more a result of patience and critical thinking, but outdoors might help near-sightedness.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

well, i can concur. my eyes have trouble adjusting to looking into the distance when i have spent hours in front of the screen. they adapt after a few minutes to hours though.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If you get this type of short sight vision, you can train your eyes to get the vision back as this is caused by the eyes strength.

But if you have the type that has to do with your eye shape going outside will do nothing, and you can exercise it away

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›