Wouldn't you get a headache or have depth perception issues? Whenever I lose a contact in the middle of the day and don't have a spare it's very uncomfortable to keep the other in.
I am not GP, but I don't have a problem with a single contact. What I find really neat is after hours of just one, the vision in my other eye is improved for a while; I can actually see decently from the non-contact eye when I remove the contact.
"Monovision" in the in-eye lenses is a very common choice for elderly patients having cataract surgery. There may be a period of adjustment, which you wouldn't have had.
It's ultimately a cultural issue. Russia never really experienced the liberalization and philosophical transformation of the enlightenment that occurred in Europe, they practiced monstrous feudalism until suddenly transitioning to socialism, which quickly became just as monstrous. Rules without ideology or philosophy are just things to be gamed - exactly as occurs often in those cultures without strong rule-of-law ideologies and societal game-theory countermeasures against corruption and malfeasance. Our politicians would rather twist the laws to make corruption legal than engage in illegal corruption because the drawbacks of illegality are so large. Russian politicians would rather do things extralegally because the system is facade and the real system is one of might makes right so the laws don't apply to them.
Turkey charges fees for ships crossing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. That's not illegal or against the international order. The only countries strongly opposing an Iranian/Omani fee are the US, Israel, and Europe, because they are enemies of Iran. Other countries just add it to the cost of doing business.
i don't know where you are getting your information. oman and china (among others) opposes tolling hormuz. the montreaux convention precedes the un, and was explicitly rolled into the rules of the sea.
china has recently invaded bhutan and the Philippines -- not to mention historically vietnam, north korea, and tibet, saudi arabia and uae (directly https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-laun...) participated in the attack on iran too, eritrea, ethiopia, sudan, congo, niger, Venezuela threatened guyana, Ukraine (understandably) invaded russia, though that turned out to be mostly pointless, armenia, azerbaijan...
> china has recently invaded [...] the Philippines
Uh, when? I couldn't find any information suggesting that such a thing happened. Fishing rights and other minor maritime disputes don't make an invasion.
> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US.
Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
They didn't start the war. Those countries are hosting bases and troops and providing aid to the enemy who attacked them multiple times while they were negotiating. Why shouldn't they strike US bases and US vassals when fighting a war against the US? Why should they be polite when the US doesn't even honor basic diplomatic norms, let alone pretend to care about international law or rules of engagement?
Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.
The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.
DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.
We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.
The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.
This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.
Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).
That's still the foundation.
We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.
Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.
Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.
There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.
It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.
The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.
Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.
People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.
If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.
Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.
And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.
The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.
To the rest of the world, US aggression is perceived as oppressive and unilateral primarily because it’s a political act meant to further domestic political goals. All US administrations act in their own self interest, as they should.
But the US being the world’s cop was never going to be sustainable indefinitely. It was partly because of hegemonic power and partly because of a reluctance of wealthy democratic countries to seriously invest in their military when they could just “pay” someone else.
I don’t think anyone wants the pre world war 2 order. So we are likely going to see otherwise reluctant states step up militarily to protect their neighborhoods.
If you think propaganda is why people are upset about Gaza, you don't understand the politics and history. Diasporas produce grassroots domestic interest and activism, no propaganda needed. 70 years of forcing people out of their homes makes for a pretty significant diasporic population.
I've seen similar for pushups - do twice as many pushups as your 1x goal, in whatever reps/set is comfortable, slowly shifting to more reps/fewer sets until you are doing 2 sets of 100 pushups or whatever your goal is.
Yes, personally, this works very well for me for any exercise. To get better at pull- and push-ups, I just do lots of them and rarely ever go to my limits. I look at training as practice. My aim is to be comfortable with pull- and push-ups, pistol squats, etc. Focus on process rather than outcome.
It's good to hear that there are gym trainers who advocate for this. From what I've seen, this approach seems to go contrary to popular belief and some people tend to be quite adamant about it, insisting on specific routines, splits, and rest days, but it's how I went from not being able to do a single push-up to effortlessly doing 10 consecutive one-arm push-ups. I just practice.
It's not really helpful if I recognize the name when the gas station doesn't put the charges on my card until Friday when I bought stuff there on Tuesday. Then I'm just confused and have to analyze my whole purchase history.
it's common, they reserve an amount, and then update towards the final payment. These are not payments as such, and almost always take 48 hours to clear. Same at hotel rooms usually etc..
Many banks only show payments (so only after cleared) and not reserved funds. They will just show that you don't have the full credit available
Very few children know enough and have the disposition to productively stand up to a cop (or any other seemingly legitimate authority) and try to defend their rights. Legally, whether they have the same rights as adults is also questionable.
reply