-I do see it on the edge of a single finger.

-I agree, also I can only observe the effect when focusing on the gap

-sure, but weirdly the effect has to be wavelength dependent, but there are no color fringes.

I think this is something else, but haven't figured it out yet.

>-sure, but weirdly the effect has to be wavelength dependent, but there are no color fringes.

I do think you can get colour fringes in some circumstances. Try doing it in a dark room with a bright light coming through a small gap (e.g. between curtains). Like:

                                |
                                |                    (dark room)
                                |

    light source - - - - - ->- - - - - - - - - ->- - - - - - ->- - - - - - - - - ->  eye
                                                                       |
                                |                                      |
                                |                                      |
                                |                                    finger
                        small-ish gap (1-5cm)

(not to scale)

IIRC you can get colour fringes between the finger and the top edge of the gap behind it.

EDIT: I just tested it, there is definitely a rainbow spectrum between the finger and the gap. The gap side is blue and the finger side is red. Not sure if this is the same effect as the article though.

Interesting, I can only see the bands when holding my fingers very close to my eye, and _not_ focussing on it. If I hold my fingers far enough to be able to focus, I don't see them. Maybe my eyesight is not good enough. Focussing on a single finger, I see that the border has a green tint to it.

I agree that there's no colour in the fringes, which is unexpected for white light interference.

That's not the case. Most of these wouldn't kill you. Many of those that would kill you would be spotted in time anyways.

And the few that would kill you and would otherwise not be noticed are so rare that the risk of the procedures on the others is considered higher.

No, you still wouldn't, because doctors are neither free nor perfectly rational.

The probability of finding something worth a biopsy is not low, it is high compared to the probability of the patient requiring intervention.

Yes that is my point. It's about cost

That's not what they said.

It is not only money, machines and doctors are also a limited resource.

The other bit is that no one follows your protocol, everyone looks at the scans, finds reasons to worry. Then you have the choice between unnecessary biopsies and psychological stress.

I agree, and I think rationing is the correct thing to do. I just don't like being gaslit by doctors (or would prefer doctors who know better).

And I agree most doctors won't do this, but again I blame the doctors and their training

this one has a better font, might be a simple copy&paste job

I've checked for copy and paste, there's so many character flaws, their OCR must have sucked really bad, I may try with deepseekOCR or something. I mean the database would probably more searchable if someone ran every file through a better OCR.

this would not have helped here

This only makes sense if it somehow helps to evade some kind of regulation. I'm not quite sure which though.

Absolutly, they intentionally make stuff sound secure and private while keeping full access.

Is there an independent audit of the Whatsapp client and of the servers?

I find this wording also "a bit strange".

It is not a mathematical impossibility in any way.

For example they might be able to read the backups, the keys might be somehow (accidentaly or not) leaked...

And then the part about Telegram not having end2end encryption? What's this all about?

Telegram defaults to not e2ee; you have to initiate a "secret" chat to get e2ee.