Run a snowflake-proxy instance to help censored users access the Tor network (To be clear: no traffic exits from your IP, you're just relaying that traffic to a bridge that then connects to the Tor network): https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/snowflake/stand...
This is one of the main reasons why I keep using Tor daily. The more people use Tor for normal browsing, the less interesting it becomes to be a Tor user, the better the anonymity for everyone else.
Here's one that is "production" ready: the Mirage-Firewall microkernel built using MirageOS and running on Qubes OS.[0] In general MirageOS allows you to:
> ... construct unikernels for secure, high-performance network applications across a variety of cloud computing and mobile platforms.
Code can be developed on a normal OS such as Linux or macOS, and then compiled into a fully-standalone, specialised unikernel that runs under a Xen or KVM hypervisor.[1]
You can help by running a Snowflake proxy (which merely functions as a gateway to the Tor Network, so you don't need to worry as no traffic exits from your IP) if you're in a country that doesn't censor Tor. You can either run the standalone Snowflake proxy:
> Hearing these pleas, the Internet Archive proposed temporarily lifting the technical
controls enforcing its one-to-one ratio. Since all of the libraries were closed, the Internet
Archive reasoned, there were surely more non-circulating copies locked up in shuttered libraries
than would be borrowed via the Internet Archive even without those technical controls in place.
This has been eloquently addressed by Tor veteran Mike Perry:[1]
Concerns about Javascript are rooted in two avenues:
1. Fingerprinting concerns.
2. Zero-day exploits against Firefox.
The reason we feel that leaving Javascript enabled trumps these concerns
is:
1. We want enough people to actually use Tor Browser such that it
becomes less interesting that you're a Tor user. We have plenty of
academic research and mathematical proofs that tell us quite clearly
that the more people use Tor, the better the privacy, anonymity, and
traffic analysis resistance properties will become.
In fact, my personal goal is to grab the entire "Do Not Track" userbase
from Mozilla. That userbase is probably well in excess of 12.5 million
people:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/400248/
I do not believe we can capture that userbase if we ship a
JS-disabled-by-default browser.
2. Exploitable vulnerabilities can be anywhere in the browser, not just
in the JS interpreter. We disable and/or click-to-play the known major
vectors, but the best solutions here are providing bug bounties (Mozilla
does this; we should too, if we had any money) and sandboxing systems
(Seatbelt, AppArmor, SELinux).
> A reminder that Tor Browser might be one of the least safe browsers you can run: it's a fork of Firefox, meaning that its maintainers have to coordinate and port patches from the mainline project.
Tor Browser ships updates as soon as new ESR versions come out.
> Firefox is already not one of the most hardened browser engines.
That might've been true in the past, it's hard to argue for it now.
> Meanwhile, the fork you'll be running is specifically designed to hide sensitive traffic, and collapses all those users into a single version for exploits to target.
The overwhelming majority of exit traffic now is using HTTPS and Tor Browser ships with HTTPS Everywhere to avoid SSL Striping attacks (in fact the next version of the Tor Browser will have the HTTPS-Only mode enabled by default, it's already being tested in the alpha release), so how will those evil exit node burn those exploits?
> I'm ambivalent about Tor, but if you're using Tor, don't use the Browser Bundle.
First off, the "Tor Browser Bundle" is a deprecated name. If you're not using the Tor Browser you're making yourself both insecure (it ships with a smaller attack surface, no WebGL for example) and fingerprintable defeating thus the full privacy advantages of the Tor Browser. There is simply no other alternative.
The article stresses that if you reduce too much for the distant vision then you will have too much blur which will only lead to blur adaptation, and won't yield any improvements.
The problem with LASIK is that it doesn't address the root of the problem which is that the eyeball gets longer, it only works as if someone carved glasses on your cornea. So you might still get the negative consequences of having a longer eyeball after it.
There are many anecdotal reports about people seeing shorter eyeballs as measured by an autorefractor while doing the reduced lens method, one example that I recall is this one from cliffgnu[1].
For LASIK the real thing that isn't communicated is that it doesn't address the root of the problem which is that the eyeball gets longer, it only works as if someone carved glasses on your cornea.