Can you ask the second doctor to examine you to at least the same standard as the first one?
Maybe someone on Less Wrong who has access to UpToDate can send you a copy of their glaucoma page, for an authoritative list of pros and cons.
Can you ask the second doctor to examine you to at least the same standard as the first one?
Maybe someone on Less Wrong who has access to UpToDate can send you a copy of their glaucoma page, for an authoritative list of pros and cons.
Can you ask the second doctor to examine you to at least the same standard as the first one?
Unfortunately, no. See my answer to Lumifer.
Laser iridotomy appears to be less risky:
http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/La-Pa/Laser-Iridotomy.html
What he proposed is in fact laser iridotomy, although they called it laser iridectomy.
My impression is that glaucoma (which is, basically, too high intraocular pressure) is easy to diagnose. Two doctors disagreeing on it would worry me.
Don't get just a third independent opinion, get a fourth one as well.
It was less than a disagreement. I'm sorry that I over-emphasized this point. The first time the pressure was Hgmm 26/18, the second time 19/17. The second doctor said that the pressure can fluctuate, and her equipment is not enough to settle the question. (She is an I-don't-know-the-correct-term national health service doctor, the first one is an expensive private doctor with better equipment, and more time for a patient.)
My eye doctor diagnosed closed-angle glaucoma, and recommends an iridectomy. I think he might be a bit too trigger-happy, so I followed up with another doctor, and she didn't find the glaucoma. She carefully stated that the first diagnosis can still be the correct one, the first was a more complete examination.
Any insights about the pros and cons of iridectomy?
From looking at the scripts, it appears first and last names (actually, all capitalised words I think) were counted separately ("Neal: 11, Stephenson: 11" and "Munroe: 13, Randall: 11", etc) and first names were handedited out (so that's why both Nassim and Taleb are on the list).
The answer is somewhere between "Nassim Taleb was quoted 16 times, and three of those times the attribution was just 'Taleb'" and "Nassim Taleb was quoted 13 times and was mentioned in three other quotes (since he's a controversial figure)".
Yes. To be exact, not all capitalized words, but all capitalized words that my English spellchecker does not recognize. With all capitalized words the list would start like this:
Of course the spellchecking method is itself a source of errors. Previous years I never felt like manually correcting these, but checking now it seems like these were the main victims:
Graham is actually number one. I added them to this list, and also to the "Top original authors by karma collected" list. Not retroactively, though, just for 2013.
Oh, these are all cumulative lifetime total karma scores...? I thought these numbers were just for 2013.
Those numbers are also there, in this child comment. I edited the comment to make it clear.
I am a little chagrined that though I am #2 by total karma, I have only 2 in the bests list. Seems I need to be a little more selective in the future.
You are #2 by karma collected from 2009 to 2013, not just in 2013. You earned an average of 8.20 karma points from 5 quotes in 2013, and an average of 11.05 karma points from 81 quotes in total, which is near to a P-value of 0.5 in my statistical test.
Top short quotes (2009-2013) by karma per character:
Top original authors by number of quotes. (Note that authors and mentions are not disambiguated.)
Top original authors by karma collected:
Is there a family history of this? If so that would skew my assessment towards that of the first doctor. If not, seriously another opinion...
No family history.