Bobbing for an Apple Watch

Ever since the Apple Watch was first introduced in 2015, I’ve always thought it was an interesting accessory, but I never seriously considered one because of what I saw as an exorbitant price tag, and very limited battery life, compared with a conventional watch. At the time, I was also using an Android smart phone, so I wasn’t fully in that ecosystem. Still, the idea never really left me.

Around 2020, I did buy a generic smart watch, and while I liked it well enough for what it was, it kept lousy time and there was no good way to manually reset it, so I put it aside after a month or so of active use and went back to my conventional analog watches.

The one thing I’d always said would make me buy an Apple Watch is if they were to make one that could monitor my blood glucose levels. While that technology has not come to pass, I recently started using Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring sensors, which will communicate with an Apple Watch. That was enough to rekindle my interest, but I still wasn’t prepared to pay the full freight for a brand new one, so I turned to eBay for an affordable second-hand model, an Apple Watch 5 series 44mm in space gray aluminum, with two plastic straps in chocolate brown and off white.

Plastic watch straps have never been my thing, so I ordered a black stainless steel deployment style bracelet that’s more to my liking. It came with a link removal tool, which made adjusting the bracelet's size to fit my wrist very easy. I had to remove a total of three links, two from one side of the buckle and one from the other. The whole process took about ten minutes to give the watch a much different--and more sophisticated--look.

Still, now that I have the watch, I might have held off on the band. It is several years old, too old to receive further WatchOS updates, and even though it is in good cosmetic condition, the battery barely lasts a day. On my second day with this watch, I put it on around 9:00 a.m., and the battery was down to 36 percent by supper time, and went to low power mode by bedtime.

After wearing it a couple of days, I have changed a couple of settings to noticeably improve battery life. According to everything I've read online, the always-on display isn't supposed to affect battery life much, but turning that feature off does indeed buy a few extra hours of life between charges. It seems like a minor thing, but it definitely helps me warm up to the watch a little more.

I also discovered that the watch is one generation too old to fully integrate with the Dexcom sensors, so all I can receive on it is high and low glucose alerts. That’s better than nothing, but I was looking forward to being able to read my glucose levels on demand. Oh well, that one’s on me for not checking more carefully. Live and learn, I suppose. 

The jury is still out on whether my Apple Watch experience will end up somewhat like my generic smart watch experience. I’m going to give it a week or so, and see how I feel about it. Will I wear it frequently, or leave it on the charger for increasingly extended periods until one of the cats eventually knocks it off, and I find I’m too lazy to pick it up and put it back on? Time will tell.

I've already determined this is not my ultimate smart watch. What my ultimate smart watch would need are a battery that lasts at least three or four days between charges, a week would be better, direct blood glucose monitoring, and an affordable price. Yeah, none of that exists right now, and we are talking Apple products here, so if and when it ever arrives, it definitely won't be affordable, at least not my idea of affordable.

UPDATE: I've now had the Apple Watch for about a month and a half, and things have gone pretty much as I had predicted. My feelings toward the watch are lukewarm at best, I wear it maybe once, maybe twice a week, and by the time I put it back on the charger that night, I'm happy to choose one of my more conventional watches for the next day, and then wear it for several days, maybe week or longer. And on the days I do wear the Apple Watch, I actually find it to be mildly annoying, vibrating and displaying every email, text message, and phone call that comes in. And when I want to see what time it is, it may or may not display the watch face. Quite frankly, I'm failing to appreciate the value proposition of the Apple Watch. Maybe that's me, maybe it's the watch, or maybe it's a combination of the two. Honestly, I'm just not feeling it the way I'd hoped I would.

My Two-Headed Monster

In the almost 40 years I've been using computers, and well over 30 years of computer ownership, I've only ever had a single monitor, and that has always seemed to be enough; in fact, I've frequently wondered over the years exactly what I'd do with a multi-monitor setup.

The 14-inch screen on my laptop is usually enough for my needs, but I do occasionally find myself thinking a little extra screen real estate would be nice.  I recently found a simple and cost effective solution in a KYY model K3-2 portable 15.6-inch USB-C monitor. This device adds a second screen, slightly larger than that of my laptop, with plug-and-play simplicity to create, along with a wireless USB keyboard and mouse, a double-headed desktop configuration that can easily be set up and taken down as needed.

Setup, right out of the box took just a couple of minutes to position the monitor on its included stand, which flattens out to double as a protective slipcase, and connect it to the laptop using the supplied USB-C cable. My Dell laptop, which runs Linux Mint, immediately recognized the monitor and activated it as a second screen, onto which I could drag windows over for simultaneous viewing. The screen image of the external monitor is slightly softer than that of the laptop, but it is by no means unpleasant to use. I have not yet tried it with the HDMI cable to see if that makes any difference.

In addition to the aforementioned slipcase/stand, the package includes a USB-C to USB-C cable, suitable for connecting to most current laptops without an additional power cable, an HDMI to mini HDMI cable for video connection only, and a USB-C to USB-A cable for power from a wall outlet, via its included plug-in power adapter when needed. With these three cables, one can connect the monitor to a variety of laptop computers, smart phones and tablets, portable gaming devices, etc.; however, some devices, such as older Apple products, that lack a USB-C port, may require an additional proprietary adapter to connect.

The monitor is very thin and lightweight, making it easy to carry along in the bag with the laptop, making the multi-monitor experience feasible on the go. A certain degree of care should be exercised in transporting the monitor. Putting it inside the slipcase/stand is a must, and the manufacturer discourages carrying it in a backpack where it could sustain damage from other hard objects. The monitor also comes in a sturdy, well-designed box with compartments for the included accessories, suitable to store the monitor when not in use. Users would be wise to keep the box as an integral component for long term protection.

It should be noted that KYY offers several different variations of this monitor, but only the K3-2 offers the slipcover stand. Other variants come with a magnetic stand that acts as a protective cover over the screen, not a storage pouch. This model supposedly has the ability to operate in portrait mode, simply by turning the monitor up on end, but I have not been able to make that happen while it’s connected to my laptop. Perhaps it needs to be connected to a device like a smart phone that has a portrait orientation by default.

One small design compromise this feature necessitates is that all ports and controls are located on the right side of the monitor when in landscape mode, so that they are accessible on top when the monitor is rotated 90 degrees for portrait mode. By comparison, the other variants have a USB-C port on each side. Fortunately, the supplied USB-C to USB-C cable is long enough to run from the left side of my laptop to the right side of the KYY monitor. This is important for ergonomic reasons because the computer assumes the external monitor is to its right, so that dragging from the laptop to the second monitor is from left to right. To me, this is a non-issue.

The only very minor disappointment worth mentioning is that the monitor’s USB-C ports apparently do not support a data pass-through connection to the laptop, only video and power, as documented in its instruction booklet. When I attempted to plug a USB-C camera card reader into the monitor’s second USB-C port, the KYY monitor simply blanked out and the SD card never mounted. In the absence of a USB-A card reader, I had to temporarily unplug the monitor from my laptop’s single USB-C port to copy the needed images, then reconnect the monitor. Although it is by no means a deal killer, a fully functional USB-C port would have been appreciated in that instance.

Since I have only just received this monitor today, I am still exploring its capabilities and use cases, but for the price I paid, I am generally pleased with the purchase. 

UPDATE--In using this monitor for a couple of days, I have come to the realization that the combination slipcase/stand, while arguably a genius design for use on the go, is only satisfactory for short periods. The issue is the magnets that hold it in the stand configuration. While they hold the two ends of the cover together, they can still slip laterally over time, making it less satisfactory to use for more than a few hours at a time. There really should be a physical tab to stop it from sliding forward. If the monitor needs to remain set up for several days, a sturdier stand is preferable. 

My solution is a Lisen adjustable tablet stand. It is well designed and sturdy enough to support a monitor this size. With two-point articulation and a telescoping arm, one can adjust both height and viewing angle to improve ergonomics. The three pieces are held together with bolts that can be tightened with the included hex key that stores neatly underneath the base. For barely the price of a fast food value meal, it is a worthwhile purchase to greatly improves the experience.

One month later...--The extra screen with the Lisen stand has been so satisfactory that I haven't yet found a good reason to take it down. On the contrary, I find myself increasingly gravitating toward this laptop/desktop hybrid setup, even when I could get away with just the laptop's screen. It's an accessory I didn't know I needed.

Tooning in on Trek

Last night, I finished watching season two of Star Trek: Prodigy, and it got me thinking about the three animated Star Trek series that have been produced to date, and how different they are from one another. 

The first animated series, which debuted in 1973 and ran for 22 episodes under the title Star Trek, but was later re-dubbed Star Trek: The Animated Series when it came out on DVD in 2006, was essentially a direct continuation of the original live action series, from the 1960s and starred the voices of almost all of the original cast, some of whom voiced multiple characters. Walter Koenig was not brought back to reprise his role as Pavel Chekov, although he did contribute a script for the episode "The Infinite Vulcan". 

Dismissed by many at the time as a kiddie show because it ran as part of NBC's Saturday morning lineup, against the wishes of Creator Gene Roddenberry, who saw animation as a way to create more visually expansive worlds that would not have been feasible with the physical effects technology of the day. Unfortunately, it came out at a time when animation was at a low point due to the rising cost of hand animation. Computer generated animation was still a decade or two away from coming into its own. Over the years, the animated series has garnered greater appreciation, especially for the quality of its stories, many of which were penned by writers from the original series. I doubt it would ever happen, but it would be incredible to see a 're-animated' version of this series, using the original audio with modern animation techniques, much as the original live action series received updated visual effects in the mid-2000s.

After the animated series wrapped in 1975, it quickly became a quaint and largely forgotten footnote in Star Trek history, except for those who had watched it on Saturday mornings. It would be more than four decades before another animated Star Trek series would see the light of day, this time streaming on CBS All Access, which would later be renamed Paramount+

Star Trek: Lower Decks is an unapologetic parody of all things Star Trek. Drawing on a concept from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, similarly titled "The Lower Decks", which also focused on a group of junior crew members, Lower Decks Centers on the dysfunctional crew of the USS Cerritos, specifically its junior crew members, the show is an all-out slapstick sitcom, its humor is decidedly low-brow. 

Set in time just after Star Trek: Nemesis, the show's outrageous nature seems to appeal to at least some viewers enough to warrant five seasons, the last of which, thankfully, will drop in the fall of 2024, and even inspired a live-action crossover with Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. 

Honestly, I try to embrace Trek in all its many forms, but for me, Lower Decks must be taken in very small doses, as it usually borders between idiotic and downright cringe worthy. Why this series survived on Paramount+ and Prodigy did not, is quite frankly beyond me. I just don't get the appeal.

The year after Lower Decks debuted, Paramount+, in partnership with the Nickelodeon cable network, created a far more thoughtful animated series called Star Trek: Prodigy, which focuses on a group of adolescents of various species, who find an abandoned Federation starship and take it on a voyage of self-discovery, under the tutelage of a holographic representation of Voyager's Capt. Kathryn Janeway. 

The premise of this show, and the fact that it was overtly targeted for younger viewers, may have dissuaded some adult viewers from giving it a try, and I count myself among them. It was only after it was abruptly canceled and removed from both Paramount+ and Nickelodeon, and then showed up on Netflix, that I decided give it a proper chance. What I discovered was some of the best Star Trek I had encountered in years.

Framed as an interstellar coming of age story, there are elements that will resonate strongly with younger viewers, but the storylines are thoughtful and well developed enough to appeal to adult audiences, and its essence holds truer to the best that Star Trek has to offer. 

The series uses seasonal story arcs similar to the structure of Star Trek: Picard, and as such, the premise for a third season was set up in the final episode of season two. At this point, the future of the series is largely in the hands of viewers, as Netflix bases its renewal decisions on streaming numbers and social media chatter. Given the show's high quality it is a bit of a mystery why Prodigy has had such a rocky run, with one season on Paramount+ and Nickelodeon, followed by a jump to Netflix for a repeat of season one, followed up by an even better second season. 

Star Trek's animated offerings have come a long way in the past half-century, and may yet prove to be the franchise's next frontier.

A Tale of Two Sensors: Dexcom G7 vs. Libre Frestyle 3

I have been using continuous blood glucose monitors for the past five or six years, and it has been a godsend, compared to pricking my fingers or forearm several times a day to check my blood sugar levels. Up until a year and a half ago, I was using the Freestyle Libre 2 fourteen-day sensors, which required a physical tap from a dedicated reader or a smart phone with an app to take a reading. More recently, I'd upgraded to the Freestyle Libre 3, which automatically sends readings to my phone via Bluetooth, which is even more convenient. But all that came to sudden and unexpected end this past spring.

My health insurance changed their formulary, and now only covers Dexcom sensors, but rather than just smoothly switch me over to their preferred brand, there ensued a two-month fight with said insurance company to even get those. I honestly believe their goal was to try and frustrate me back into pricking my fingers all the time, but thankfully, I was stubborn enough to prevail. 

I finally got my hands on a supply of Dexcom G7 (DG7) sensors three days ago, and put on the first one today, where it is running alongside my next-to-last Freestyle Libre 3 (FL3) sensor for its final couple of hours. I did this to be able to compare readings with the two, and they seem to be spot on, within a few points of each other. But how do they compare in other ways?

I suppose the best place to start is the steps to put the sensor on and activate it. The FL3 is pretty simple and straightforward. Clean the area on the back of the arm where it will be applied, open the applicator and press it into the skin. The spring-loaded applicator then attaches the sensor, which is about the size of a nickel, to the skin. The sensor then must be activated by tapping it with a smart phone, on which the Freestyle Libre app is active. An hour later, the phone starts receiving readings every minute. 

By comparison, the DG7, which is noticeably larger and thicker, closer in size to the Freestyle Libre 2, is also a bit more complicated. It uses a similar spring-loaded applicator, but it's a little more complicated to use, in that one must press it into the skin to retract a safety collar, which enables a trigger button on the side of the applicator. The sensor is put in place by pressing the trigger button. This is a more cumbersome process, which subsequently requires the user to press the sensor firmly into place for a few seconds and then rub a finger around the periphery of the sensor a few times to ensure firm attachment. 

If this makes one suspect the DG7's adhesive isn't as good as that of the FL3, one would be correct in that assessment, because the next step is to apply a provided over-patch. Such patches are optionally available for the Freestyle Libre sensors, but are not included in the package. I have a supply of them on hand, but have only used them when I'm planning to go swimming, particularly in salt water, or when the sensor has been knocked loose or the adhesive is otherwise failing, but the sensor is still functioning. By comparison, the over-patch is required for the DG7. Both sensors can be used when showering or swimming, but the DG7 is good to a depth of eight feet, versus the FL3's three-foot maximum depth.

Activation of the DG7 happens a little differently than with the FL3. The 30-minute  warm-up period, as opposed to an hour for the FL3, begins automatically once the sensor is applied, but it must still be paired with one's phone, either by entering a four-digit code in the app or scanning a QR code, both of which are found on the side of the applicator. By the time I had applied the sensor and over-patch, and then paired it with my phone, the sensor was already a couple of minutes into the warm-up period. It should be noted that until the DG7 sensor is paired with one's phone, no readings will be received, but the timer will be ticking on the sensor's 10-day functional lifespan. 

Yes, the DG7 sensors do not last as long as the FL3, just 10.5 days, including a 12-hour 'grace period', as compared to the FL3's 14 days. Realistically, this means one will go through three sensors a month with the DG7, as opposed to two with the FL3. Another functional difference is that the DG7 sensor transmits data to the phone app once every five minutes, instead of once a minute for the Freestyle Libre sensors, which means it's capturing only 20 percent as much data. Until I've lived with the DG7 sensor for a while, I won't be able to know know how much of a difference this makes. I'm suspecting it will be relatively little, as I will still be able to see trends in the app, despite having fewer data points. The flip side of this coin is the DG7's impact on my four-year-old iPhone's battery life. If the sensor is only transmitting data twelve times an hour instead of sixty, I could see a potential for improved battery life. Time will tell on that one.

Other notable differences between the sensors is that the DG7 must be within 20 feet of one's phone, versus 30 feet for the FL3, but because the DG7 transmits data only once every five minutes, one has greater latitude to stray away from the phone and move back into range. Also, the DG7 offers greater flexibility of approved locations on which to affix it--back of the upper arm or abdomen for adults, as well as upper buttocks for small children, while the Freestyle Libre sensors are approved only for the back of the upper arm.

Having only had the DG7 sensor on my arm for a couple of hours, I have not yet been able to form an opinion about whether I like it better or worse than the FL3, and I accept that human nature being what it is, I would naturally lean toward the tried and true, especially since I was forced to make the switch when I was quite content with the FL3. Expect an update in ten days or so, after this DG7 sensor expires and I put on my final FL3.

UPDATE, two days later--After wearing the DG7 sensor for two days, I'm getting used to it, but I do find it less comfortable than the FL3, both because of its size and the over patch. The phone app is comparable to that of the FL3. The feature set seems to be much the same, but due to the less frequent data points, it is shown as a series of dots, instead of a continuous line with the FL3 app. Sharp and sudden increases or decreases can appear to be data gaps to the untrained eye. 

Additionally, DG7 sensors will also send data to a smart watch, without a phone, a feature not available with the Freestyle sensors. I'm not sure whether this will entice me to take the plunge for an Apple Watch, but it does give me another reason to consider purchasing one. The larger question is whether that one reason outweighs the other various reasons I have found not to take the plunge.

I also feel that my preliminary supposition regarding phone battery life is proving to be correct, but not dramatic. Using the FL3 sensor, my phone's battery would be down to between 20 and 40 percent by the end of the day; whereas, yesterday it was at 58 percent when I went to bed. It is now mid-afternoon, and with fairly typical phone use so far today, the battery is at 83 percent, compared with 60-70 percent when using the FL3 sensor and app. I fully realize that I have not yet amassed nearly enough data to fully support or refute my hypothesis, but I feel like it is promising.

Day 10 UPDATE--So, I just changed out my first DG7 sensor a little while ago. My thought last night was to use the last of my FL3 sensors and run the two simultaneously to collect a few hours of comparative data before the DG7 sensor ran out. It turned out my last FL3 sensor was defective. I was awoken from a sound sleep just before 4:00 a.m. by a low glucose alarm that turned out to be erroneous. The FL3 sensor was showing my level in the low 50s, while the DG7 was showing it in the low 100s. The fact that I was feeling absolutely no symptoms of hypoglycemia told me the DG7 was providing more accurate information. I was kept awake by a series of false low alarms over the next couple of hours before receiving a signal loss alarm. The phone was no longer receiving data from the FL3 sensor. Finally, about three hours later, the FL3 app flashed a message on my phone screen, instructing me to replace the sensor, which I did once the DG7 sensor ran out. By that time, I had torn the defective FL3 sensor off of my arm and deleted its app from my phone. Out with a whimper, I'd say.

Normally at this point, I'd be on the phone with Abbot Labs, manufacturer of the FL3 sensor, requesting a replacement, as I have done many times before when they have failed prematurely. But this time, I just took it as a sign that it was time to fully make the switch over to the Dexcom sensors. 

After using one for a full ten days, I've decided that although the FL3 is the hands down winner for comfort and convenience, especially when it comes to applying and activating the sensor, there are also things that offset the inconvenience. I am seriously considering buying an Apple Watch to take advantage of its ability to receive data from the DG7 sensor.

Costco vs. Sam's Club

 So, almost a year ago, I took advantage of a discounted deal on a Sam's Club membership for $19. It will renew automatically on July 8 for the full price of $50, unless I cancel it before then. I also have had a Costco membership for almost a decade, so this raises the question of whether I need to keep both, or if not, which to drop. In analyzing how I use each membership, I'm finding the equation is anything but straightforward.

The first question of cost for the membership itself would seem a 'no-brainer', in that the Sam's membership is $10 cheaper, but having had the Costco membership longer, I am slightly more invested in that ecosystem because I also have a Costco Visa card, which earns me more than enough cash back--even on my Sam's Club purchases--to cover the price of my Costco membership and then some. While I could get a similar Sam's Club card, the hassle of switching over, considering all of the automatic charges tied to the Costco card, makes this less than appealing. The advantage going in definitely belongs to Costco.

The second part of the equation is what I buy at each store. There are many items available at both stores, and at comparable prices. It's mostly a matter of convenience or which one has it on sale. Of course, there is also packaging to consider. Costco, for instance, offers most of its canned goods, in normal sized cans, shrink wrapped together in cases of six or twelve, depending on the product, while Sam's offers most of its canned goods in restaurant-sized no. 10 cans that are simply not practical for home use. Costco also seems to offer better quality in the form of more organic and gourmet selections than Sam's does, meaning that there is often more stuff I want to buy at Costco. In recent years, I have made Costco my go-to for tires and car batteries, although my most recent tire purchase was at Sam's, which was able to provide a slightly better turn key price. Having the tires from Sam's raises the concern over their warranty, which would instantly evaporate, should I decide to cancel that membership.

Part of my motivation for pulling the trigger on the Sam's Club membership was for a couple of specific items that are not offered at Costco, but is it enough to justify paying for that membership? The number of items in question is fairly small, and I often question whether I would be better off in the long run, using the price of the membership fee to buy those items elsewhere, albeit at a somewhat higher unit price? I have to keep in mind that sometimes, the unit cost of items at Sam's or Costco is not as competitive as it might seem on the surface.

Another sub-part of this question is how often I shop at each location. I tend to go to Costco about once a month, not including gasoline purchases, while I only go to Sam's every two months, on average, and seldom purchase gasoline there. Both stores use discounted gasoline as a loss leader, and fuel prices are comparable at both places. I will buy gas at either, if I need it, but the lines at both are enough of a hassle to keep me from going out of my way to buy fuel there, unless I'm in the neighborhood, which brings up the question of convenience.

In my city, the two stores are located almost directly across the road from one another, so they're equally (in)convenient for me. Both have congested parking, although Costco does have a bigger lot, so one can always easily park a little distance from the warehouse, saving time and fuel, as opposed to continually circling to find a spot. The latter is sometimes the only option at Sam's, which has a smaller lot.

Of a more esoteric nature is Costco's reputation for treating their employees well, which is evidenced by their low turnover rate. I see the same faces wearing red Costco vests year after year, and thus it is quite difficult to get hired there, as friends who have applied there have attested. But that makes me feel good about shopping there.  On the other hand, Sam's Club is a subsidiary of Walmart. Make of that what you will.

So, in the final analysis, a couple of conclusions have bubbled to the surface: For the reasons above, I am not considering canceling my Costco membership, and of the two, Sam's Club is the one I can more easily do without, but will I cancel it? I'm leaning toward keeping it and reassessing in a year whether I'm getting $50 worth of value from it. The membership was certainly worth the $20 I paid for it this year, but $50 will definitely be a much harder sell.

Getting Clued

One of my favorite board games when I was growing up was Clue. Using the process of elimination, players were challenged to solve the mystery of who murdered Mr. Boddie, in what room of his home, and with what weapon. I had a 1960s edition, which came in a khaki colored box with graphics resembling New Yorker cartoons. The appearance of the game changed over the years, and once Hasbro acquired the original publisher, Parker Brothers, numerous variations on the game itself began to appear, including a Harry Potter edition, appropriately set at Hogwarts.

Unfortunately, my cherished copy of that game, along with a couple of others, did not come with me when my wife and I divorced. After several years of not worrying about it, I decided I wanted to replace those childhood games, and began keeping my eyes open at thrift stores and at a second-hand bookstore I frequented. Newer editions, some with different characters, weapons and reconfigured game board layouts, were frequently available, albeit often incomplete. What I eventually realized was I wanted a copy with the original 1960s graphics that I'd had as a child. They would occasionally turn up at the used bookstore, and they always seemed to be available online, but at steep prices that I was not willing to pay.

Eventually, I spotted a bookshelf edition, in a handsome wooden box, sporting the 1960s graphics I was after, at a thrift shop. The only problem was it was incomplete. It was missing a couple of the weapons tokens, which were relatively unimportant for game play, and the Detective's Notebook pads, which were essential. But still, for less than $3, I couldn't pass it up. I was able to source a complete set of weapons online, albeit for a few dollars more than I paid for the whole game, but still less than the cost of a fast food lunch at the time.

The notebook pads were an even easier solution. I'm a pretty deft hand at using my word processor's table editor, so after a brief online search to find an example, I was able to replicate it, print out a few sheets, cut them apart, and keep the file stored on my computer. Unfortunately, that was a couple of computers ago, and although I am not completely out, I no longer have that file. I knew I should have stored it in the cloud. 

Earlier today, I did an online search and found a plethora of Detective's Notebook pages, downloadable for free. This is a great resource, as you can print out what you need for game night, and keep the file on your computer or cloud drive for future use, and it certainly beats having the expense of ordering additional pads from Parker Brothers, as we had to do when I was a kid. 

But just as there are variations in the game editions, there are variations in the notebook files online; for instance, some have different character names. Mrs. White was apparently dropped at some point, in favor of Dr. Orchid. This might be confusing to younger players, and most of the files I found are not editable. One exception is from templateroller.com, which has numbered blanks for suspect names so that you can type in names to match your edition of the game before printing them out. The only drawback here is the template is in a 'one up' configuration; that is, one notebook page per sheet. Some others are configured two-up, or even four-up. One version I looked at was three-up with one quadrant lined off for random notes. You can find what you need by entering the search terms "Clue detective notes printable" You might also want to include the word "free" to eliminate sites that would charge a fee to download or subscribe.

If you prefer to 'roll your own', as they say, you can easily set it up in a word processor like MS Word, Google Docs, or LibreOffice Write:

1. Start by splitting the page into two columns so that you can print the pages 'two-up'.
2. In the left column, use the table editor to create a table six columns wide by 24 rows deep. This will give you enough spaces for all six suspects, six weapons, and nine rooms used for the classic Clue game, plus three rows for category headings (Suspects, Weapons, Rooms), and the ability to use each notebook page five times.
   
3. The columns will be evenly spaced by default. You may wish to widen the leftmost column to provide more room for the various names. Do this by clicking and dragging the dividing line between the first and second columns to the desired width. Double-click the dividing lines between the rest of the columns to even out their widths. 
4. Type in the names of the suspects (Col. Mustard, Mr. Green, Miss Scarlet, Ms. Peacock, Prof. Plum, Mrs. White), weapons (knife, rope, wrench, revolver, lead pipe, candlestick), and rooms (kitchen, conservatory, lounge, dining room, billiards room, library, study, hall, ballroom), as appropriate for your edition of the game.
5. Turn on the grid lines to make them printable, then copy and paste everything into the right-hand column to make a two-up version.
   
6. Print the desired number of pages, and cut them apart, if desired.

Are you missing pieces to your cherished childhood board games? Never fear; it seems that on sites like eBay and Etsy, some sellers have made a cottage industry of buying incomplete board games for next to nothing at yard sales and such to part them out for spares. It pays to look at multiple listings to find what you need for the right price. 

When shopping for individual suspect, weapon and room cards for Clue, you need to make sure you get cards with graphics that match the edition you have; otherwise, the replacement card would be obvious without looking at the face. Depending on what's available, you may want to consider buying an entire set, which could prove to be more cost effective, especially if you need to replace more than one or two cards. This would also free you from having to match the graphics of your existing cards. 

So, what were the other childhood board games I replaced? They were Stratego and Yahtzee, both complete in bookshelf editions, as well as Stay Alive, which was missing a few marbles. I ended up completing that one with some Chinese checkers marbles, although I had to replace the lavender marbles with blue ones. Just for fun, I also added a single red marble as an optional 'sudden death' piece, to make the game more more fast-paced. I also got a copy of Battleship, which I had always wanted as a child, but had never owned. 

Now, I just need to have a game night.

UPDATE: I just replaced another pair of childhood games: Mastermind and Word Mastermind. In the original Mastermind, One player would arrange four colored pegs in a pattern and the other player would have several attempts to guess the pattern, with the first player providing feedback with black or white pegs to indicate a correct letter or color, and whether it was in the right position. It sounds simple, but can be far more challenging than it seems at first. Word Mastermind works much the same way, but the first player creates a four-letter word (no, not that kind of four-letter word!) for the other player to guess. I found both games in a package deal on eBay for about what one of them would go for. Even better, they're the exact versions I had when I was growing up.

My OS Agnostic Life

Don't misread the headline. I'm not writing about religion here, just the fact that I've come to use a bunch of different operating systems. I know that I have addressed aspects of this topic before, but here it is again, from what I hope is a slightly different angle.

I have owned personal computers for well over 30 years, and have been using them for almost 40. The first computer I bought was a Mac Classic in 1991. The next year, I encountered Windows at a job where I was working, and have been using both ever since, usually Windows at work and a Mac at home. If you asked me, I'd tell you I was a Mac person, forced to use a PC at work. To date, I have only had one job where I was allowed the option of working on a Mac instead of a Windows PC. I've also owned two Windows PC's in my time, both were eventually re-imaged to run Linux.

Speaking of Linux, that's when things began to change for me, about 15 years ago. I've casually experimented with various Linux distros over the years, including OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Xubuntu (Ubuntu running the xfce desktop), Fedora, and Linux Mint, but eventually decided they weren't really ready for prime time--until about six months ago, when I acquired a late model laptop with Linux Mint, and fell in love with Linux all over again. 

So,these days I have a bit of a 'crazy quilt' of operating systems that I use on a regular basis, but they somehow all fit together into a unique matrix, where I am able to get things done, but seldom think about which operating system I am using at a given time. To understand how this works, let's look at each operating system I use an how it fits into the whole:

Mac OS--I have to start here, because I've been using it the longest. Traditionally, I've said my preference for Macintosh computers came down to an intuitive interface, coupled with solid dependability and hardware longevity. My present MacBook Pro, is 14 years old, and still fully functional, although it is no longer receiving software updates. I was using it on a daily basis, up until last October, when I got my present Linux laptop. That said, there are still a few tasks for which it is better suited than Linux, and thus I keep it in the active category. I may eventually get another Mac to replace it, but it's an expensive proposition, and even a second-hand one, nearing the end of its useful lifespan, is an expensive proposition. For now, I'm getting along okay without that expense.

Windows--I have been using Windows computers for almost as long as I have been using Macs, but they have, for the most part, belonged to others, either employers, friends, or family members. I used to say that I felt like I had a choice between fixing things on a Windows PC or getting things done on a Mac, and for the most part, that still holds true for me. I still use Windows daily at work--my employer drinks deeply of the Windows Kool-Aid--and even though I bring my work laptop home with me most nights, since commute between two campuses, I never work on it at home, even for work-related tasks. Admittedly, Windows has gotten more stable over the years, but my affinity for it has not grown. As I have already stated, I have owned two Windows laptops, both of which today run Linux Mint. I guess I'm just not really Windows compatible. 

Linux Mint--This is where things changed for me. After five or six years of casually dabbling with Linux, I had drifted away from it, until I semi-impulsively bought a Linux laptop last fall to replace a Chromebook, with which I was growing increasingly frustrated. Having a relatively high-spec computer running the latest Linux Mint, has been a revelation, and surprisingly, that machine has become my daily driver. The Linux experience can vary greatly, depending on which distro you're using, but I find Linux Mint to meet my needs nicely. The system is rock-solid stable, and in many ways, it is as intuitive as Mac OS, and in some ways, even more so; for instance, I didn't even have to configure my two networked printers. The computer detected and configured them automatically. Previously, I had felt like Linux wasn't ready for prime time, but I'm now realizing a big part of the issue may well have been the quality of the hardware on which I was running it. My Linux laptop is now firmly in the daily driver seat, and I'm loving it.

ChromeOS--Life's journeys often include some dead ends, and ChromeOS for me is definitely one of them. I bought a Chromebook about three years ago, when the MacBook Pro I was using, died. I needed something quick and cheap to keep me productive until I found what I really wanted. Shortly after receiving it, I discovered it was possible to install and run Debian Linux applications on it under the Linux Developer Environment, also known as Crostini. While I was indeed able to the LibreOffice productivity suite, Firefox Web browser and Thunderbird email client on my Chromebook, they took an inordinate amount of the machine's resources and slowed it to a crawl. The problem is that Chromebooks have very minimal hardware specifications, because they don't need much to run the Chrome Web browser, and maybe a couple of Android apps. I was trying to force the machine to be something it wasn't, and I finally had to admit it was never going to be what I wanted it to be. When I acquired the aforementioned Linux laptop, it was the proverbial breath of fresh air. This is what I was what I was wanting from my Chromebook all along, but was never going to get. Letting go of that disappointment was surprisingly easy. Today, the Chromebook is relegated to use at hybrid Zoom and in-person meetings, where I've volunteered to serve as the Zoom host. 

Other devices--When it comes to my phone and tablet I'm equally as eclectic. My iPhone is the one place where I am firmly, solidly, and stubbornly in the Apple camp. Before I got my first iPhone, I had three Android phones, none of which were particularly satisfactory. Once I got my hands on my first iPhone, I realized what I was missing and somewhat regretted not getting one sooner. I am now on my second iPhone, which will likely need replacing within the next year, and there is no question that a third iPhone is in my not-too-distant future. 

Given my affinity for iPhones, one would think I would be equally as enthusiastic for iPads. While I've had a couple second-hand units and enjoyed them, they're too expensive for how I use a tablet--reading e-books, checking email, and surfing the occasional Web site. For me a Kindle Fire tablet is a more than acceptable alternative. The Android-based interface is not the best, but it does what I need, and unlike a Chromebook, it's a no-frills alternative that actually works for my needs. The biggest issue I've had with a Fire tablet is limited storage capacity, which is easily remedied with the addition of a micro SD card. It's not the greatest tablet ever, but for well under $100 on sale, it was a good value, and worth the tradeoffs. I've just never really needed much from a tablet.

While there's no single solution that's right for everyone, I've found there's no single solution--or digital ecosystem--that fits all my needs. , but what I've patched together seems to work for me.