104
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
104 points (90.0% liked)
Technology
78661 readers
3870 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Clunky bifocals?
Vs the battery, camera, and focusing mechanism these are going to need?
Plus “clunky” bifocals have way fewer moving parts and can be made with thin wire frames so they’re lighter.
I’m sure there might be someone with really bad eyesight for whom these might be useful - like if the near and far prescriptions are too different to be possible, maybe - but this is inferior to the actual solution in almost every way.
As someone with clunky bifocals, the weight of the frame (even the chunky ones) is absolutely unnoticeable compared to the weight of the lenses. You don't get thin wireframes for the lower weight, you get it because they're less noticeable visually.
For + anyway. For high minus plastic is often the solution to conceal the thick lense border.