Batman--Back to Basics!

 Ever since I was a small child, I've been a fan of the Caped Crusader, from the Adam West series of the 1960s to Tim Burton's cinematic adaptations from 1989 and 1992, to Bruce Timm's Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1996), and animated successors, even Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, and the prequel series Gotham.

Given that history, I was very excited to hear that a new animated series, Batman: Caped Crusader, was on the way. The series dropped a few days ago on Amazon's Prime Video service, and having watched all ten episodes of the first season, I was not at all disappointed.

At first glance, this series appears as if it is a thematic continuation of the brilliant Batman: The Animated Series, but it is more of a reboot, sharing little in the way of direct continuity with the 1990s series, but nonetheless thematically closer than some others. Set sometime in the 1940s, most likely in the postwar period, Caped Crusader pays homage not only to BTAS, but also to the to movie serials, released in 1943 and 1949 with opening titles in black and white. The series uses a more muted color palette, and artwork that appears heavily inspired by the Fleischer Studios Superman cartoons from 1940-43. If you've ever wondered what a Fleischer Batman cartoon might have looked like, Caped Crusader could hold your answers.

In addition to being visually darker than its predecessor, Caped Crusader also takes a decidedly darker tone with coarser language, more adult themes, and characters actually getting killed, earning it a TV-14 rating, compared to its predecessors' TV-7 . But despite its nostalgic milieu, the show also caters to contemporary sensibilities with ethnically diverse characters, and in one episode, the beginnings of a queer romance. And speaking of gender, one of the core bat villains has undergone an extreme makeover in Batman: Caped Crusader; The Penguin is now a woman, renamed Oswalda Cobblepot. Voiced by Minnie Driver, the character works well and is perhaps even more menacing than her male predecessors. Also re-imagined is Harley Quinn, who originated in Batman: The Animated Series as a sidekick to the Joker. To provide further details would create spoilers for those who haven't watched season one yet, so I shall refrain, except to say she isn't Joker's sidekick, girlfriend, or anything else. It's not that they had a falling out, it's just that Joker doesn't figure into season one at all, except for a teaser scene, embedded in the closing moments of the season finale. Also missing from the Gotham rogues' gallery in season one were the Riddler and Mister Freeze. While Barbara Gordon figures prominently as a public defender, she does not defend the public in the guise of Batgirl, nor does Robin, the Boy Wonder make an appearance at all.

I have to say that I went into this new animated iteration of Batman with a little trepidation, knowing that the late Kevin Conroy would not be voicing the Caped Crusader or his counterpart, millionaire Bruce Wayne. Fortunately, Hamish Linklater ably fills the cape and cowl, doing honor to his predecessor without imitating him.

My only real complaint about season one of Batman: Caped Crusader is there were only ten episodes, which was hardly enough for an immersive experience. It is more akin to an appetizer plate, enough to whet one's appetite but not quite sufficient to fully satisfy on its own. Fortunately, a second season is already in the works, and one can only hope that it will be even bigger and better than the first one.

Keurig Adventures

 I've been using Keurig coffee brewers for almost a decade, but I was initially put off by their steep price. I finally became a convert after picking one up on the cheap second-hand at a thrift shop. I've now gotten several for between $9 and $20. Some have needed a little cleaning before use, and I routinely run a white vinegar solution through them to disinfect them before use, but they have all served me well. Below is a rundown of the models I've owned and my impressions of them.

B40--This was the first Keurig I owned. It's the most basic version of the classic Keurig. There is no temperature adjustment, and only two serving size choices, four and ten ounces. The water tank holds 48 ounces, which had me refilling it every other day when it was in daily use. The coffee was a little watery, but still palatable. This is the only Keurig I've had that has stopped working. All the others are still fully functional. This one was $20, back when Keurigs were still a rare sight at thrift shops. Today, they are a common fixture.

K45--A slightly updated version of the B40 with three size choices: four, six, and ten ounces. All other features and specifications are the same as above. Mine is the red variant, and everyone who sees it wants it. It was $9 well spent.

B60--An upgraded version of the B40, it has all of the features of the machines above; in fact, the water tanks and drip trays are interchangeable. Its claim to fame is an LCD display and a metal cover for the drip tray. I got this one to replace the B40 after it died. This one was a spendy $20 at the time.

B71--This was Keurig's top-of-the-line single-serve brewer when it came out, featuring a 70-ounce water tank, five serving size settings, ranging from four to twelve ounces in two-ounce increments, temperature adjustment, and an LCD display with a clock and auto-on option. This model also has a couple of annoying features. It is almost impossible to install the water tank when full without splashing water out of it; also, the power switch is inconveniently located on the right hand back side, instead of on the top. It now lives in my main office. Despite its flaws, it was an excellent $12 investment and has served me well.

K-475 (Keurig 2.0)--Keurig's attempt at a more high-tech approach, it gets a lot of stuff right, but misses the mark on some other things. Its most striking feature is a color LCD touch screen display. It also comes with an optional carafe that will keep coffee warm for a few hours. It requires super expensive, and hard to find, large K-cups. I opt instead for the reusable coffee ground holder, but that makes very weak tasting coffee. To compensate, I add a quarter teaspoon of instant. It's just enough to boost the flavor without giving it the bitter instant coffee edge. The Keurig 2.0 series incorporates the an ill-conceived, and ultimately unpopular, DRM (digital rights management) scheme to detect "genuine" K-cups and reject those it does not recognize. The only issue I've had with this is it rejects all but one of my single serving reusable K-cups. Thankfully, this feature/annoyance died when the Keurig 2.0 series was retired. Nonetheless, this is the Keurig I use daily in my kitchen. It will continue to have a place there, thanks to the carafe, because I do occasionally like to brew a pot of coffee, instead of just a cup. The Keurig 2.0 series also introduced the 'strong' setting, which slows down the brewing process a bit to create a more robust brew. For better or worse, this feature is only available when using single serving K-cups. I picked this one up for $10 and found the carafe on different shelf, priced at $4. 

UPDATE--Since writing this, I have found a better way to get good flavor with loose coffee grounds. I acquired an electric coffee grinder, which I use to more finely grind the coffee, allowing for a richer brew. I also had to get some new single serve reusable pods that have a purple stripe on the top in order to be recognized by the notorious Keurig 2.0 DRM system.

K-1500--Part of Keurig's commercial lineup, this brewer is built for durability, offering a somewhat spartan feature set, reminiscent of the Classic series. All the essential basic features are there, but no extras. It sports a 96-ounce water tank, four serving size settings from six to twelve ounces, and a 'strong' button. Although it is not included, the filter assembly for a Keurig 2.0 brewer will fit it. I have this one in my satellite office, a location where refilling the tank is sufficiently inconvenient that having the extra large water capacity is a definite plus. This one was $15.

K-Elite--Although designed for household use, this brewer seems to share a considerable amount of DNA with the K-1500 above. I haven't been able to try it, but I would not be surprised if the 75-ounce water tank is are interchangeable with that of the K-1500. In addition, it has dedicated buttons for five cup sizes, ranging from four to twelve ounces, a 'strong' button, high altitude setting, adjustable brewing temperature, and LED clock display. One design feature is a bit of a throwback to the classic line, in that there is no dedicated "brew" button. Instead, selecting the serving size initiates brewing. Like the K-1500, it does not include a filter kit but will accept the Keurig 2.0 style. One minor design flaw is the water level in the tank is not visible from the front of the brewer, only from the side. This is a recent $11 impulse purchase. I am very pleased with it and it has now found a home in my main office, replacing the B71.

Shopping for Keurigs at thrift stores can be an adventure, as prices are random at best, and are seldom based on anything resembling logic, with base models sometimes commanding higher prices than more deluxe ones. When I bought my K-475 for $10, there was another one next to it for $12 that was in visibly worse condition. When I bought my K-Elite, it was the newest and cheapest of three Keurigs on the shelf. The middle machine, in terms of both age and price, was a K-475 for $12, and the oldest one, a B40, was priced at $15. Prices sometimes soar into the stratosphere, as high as $40 or $50, regardless of model. Needless to say, those sit on the store shelf for a long time. They seem to sell most readily in the $10-$25 range. The most annoying thing about thrift store Keurigs is when parts like tank lids and drip trays get scattered across the shelves, and eventually end up in the trash unless someone reunites them. Some thrift shops have begun to wise up to this phenomenon and now tape these loose parts into place.

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.