switching to terminal based email. maybe.
I've been using email since the late 1990s, and learned early on that the best way to use email is with client software. Browser based email a.k.a. webmail has always sucked. The same can be said for email on the phone. I don't use email there, but if I did, I would use a mail client app.
In the early days, my go-to was Microsoft Outlook Express 6. Later on, I switched to Mozilla Thunderbird and have pretty much stayed with that ever since.
However, there's a problem when using a GUI mail client like Thunderbird, and it's the same problem webmail has.
Unwanted changes due to "upgrades".
Browser based email, be it Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail or whatever can change at any given time, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. The changes will always be labeled as new-and-improved, but that doesn't mean you'll like them. In fact, you'll hate them. Over time, you'll begrudgingly get used to the changes you didn't ask for. And then when you finally get somewhat comfortable with the stupid changes that were made, yep, you guessed it, more changes happen that you didn't ask for. Rinse and repeat.
GUI mail clients typically don't change, but other things gum up the works in how it functions. And this is where Thunderbird can become a steaming pile of crap real quick.
I've had to "upgrade" Thunderbird several times over the years. Every upgrade was forced. The forced upgrades were due to a number of factors. OS changes, plugins that "required" newer Thunderbird just to work, and so on.
Believe me, if it were doable, I would run Thunderbird version 3.1.20 forever, but nope, can't do that.
Presently, I run Thunderbird version 60.9.1, and that's only because I was forced off of 52.9.1 due to emoji issues. I'm not kidding. In Linux, any emoji displayed in a subject line or body of a message goes super-giant sized. Yes, there are workarounds, but they're too annoying to deal with. The only fix was to use version 60. I mostly got everything I wanted working there that I had in 52.
And oh yeah, version 60.9.1 is old, released November 2019. However, it works. The plugins I have, along reading messages in plain text for better security, using regex filters to sort and get rid of junk without issues, having the ability to schedule future emails and so on, it's all good...
...for the moment.
There is going to come a point in the future with whatever Linux I'm using where Thunderbird 60 simply won't work, possibly before 2027. And I'm not about to use modern Thunderbird, especially since they switched over to "requiring" an upgrade EVERY MONTH. I can only imagine how often that will break plugins. Screw that.
Are there alternative GUI mail clients to Thunderbird? Of course there are. Are any of them any good? Nope. I've tried a few, and there's nothing available I really get along with. And even if there were one that did agree with me, all it would take is one "upgrade" of the software with some new-and-improved b.s. to the UI to screw everything up.
The only way out of GUI hell with email is to remove the GUI entirely, and that's where a 100% text based terminal email client is the solution. A client of that type is the only one where absolutely nothing can screw up how my email looks and functions.
There are several terminal email clients for Linux, but Mutt is always the first one mentioned because it works well.
Whether it's Mutt I go with or something else, it's not so much the client that matters as does what happens before the client is launched. In Thunderbird 60, I have plugins that handle all the regex filtering, sorting and everything else within the client. With a terminal email client, things like filtering have to be handled outside the client first. There's a learning curve with this stuff, to be sure.
Is it worth it to go through the hassle of figuring this stuff out? Yes. Once done, I then have an email environment a) doesn't change unless I want it to, b) looks/functions exactly the same no matter what computer box I'm using, and c) will continue to look/function the same with newer versions of Linux in the future.
The first emails I ever sent were done using a terminal
Sort of.
My first online experience wasn't internet. It was Bulletin Board Systems a.k.a. BBSes. I'm not going to explain what those are. See BBS: The Documentary if you want to know more. The overwhelming majority of those systems were MS-DOS based. The PC I had at the time I was using BBSes had MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.
To get on a BBS, I would usually exit Windows, launch a DOS BBS client, the software would dial the phone number of the BBS, I'd connect and do whatever. Sometimes I would write messages to other people.
Don't ask me what the first message was that I wrote to somebody else, because I absolutely don't remember. In fact, I don't even remember which BBS it was where I wrote my first message.
I do remember that the first electronic message I ever wrote to somebody else was on a BBS using a PC with DOS. I know a PC technically isn't a terminal, but whatever, close enough. The point is that everything was text mode only. DOS client, no GUI, no mouse, just text. The only thing that could be considered fancy were BBSes that had a message editor like IceEdit that took advantage of ANSI colors. Messages themselves were plain text, but the editor used a very basic theme that used ANSI colors to look cool.
What is funny and ironic is that if I commit to using internet email using something like Mutt, that's basically the same as the DOS BBS messaging experience. In fact, I could, if I wanted to, recreate the BBS IceEdit look with Mutt. Not that hard to do. This makes me wonder if anybody has made a BBS-like IceEdit theme for Mutt. Maybe? Who knows.
Nostalgia is not the driving factor for wanting to switch to terminal based email. The fact I can make it look BBS-like is just a bonus. I know I can't run Thunderbird 60 forever, so if I can get my email working to my liking with something like Mutt, I eliminate the GUI hell problem. At least for email.
casio watch strap broke, replaced battery in another
Something that happened on one of my Casio F-91W watches (I own two) is that the strap decided to break. In the way the F-91W is made, the strap is not attached with spring bars, but rather pressed-in pins with no springs involved. Technically, yes, you can remove the pins to attach another strap, but not without a small mount of destruction. Not on the lugs themselves, but within the lug holes the pins go through. If you have ever removed pins from an F-91W, you know what I'm talking about. An F-91W can have its pins removed only a handful of times before they become too loose to stay within the lug. After that, you have to use thin superglue applied used those super fine applicator tips just to keep an F-91W lug pin from falling out.
I've not replaced the strap and may not even bother. But I did replace the battery on another Casio that I've had for almost a decade if not slightly longer.
Recently, I've started wearing my AE1000W again. The WS1600H is nice and totally works, but I just felt like wearing something else.
I noticed the LCD display had a little fading happened going from function to function, and button presses were a little slow to respond. It was time to replace the battery, which on the AE1000W is a CR2025.
Thankfully, replacing the battery on the AE1000W is a simple process for the most part. The strap does not have to come off. Four screws need to be removed from the rear. The rear plate comes off after that, peel off one protective sticker, and then comes one of two slightly difficult parts. The metal piece holding the battery down has a shape similar to that of a light bulb. At the "top of the bulb", you take tweezers, get down into the case, flip a little flap, then the battery comes out easily. Insert new battery. Push the metal piece down so that flap snaps back where it needs to be. The second slightly difficult part is touching the AC point to start the watch again. It is labeled, but barely visible. Find that tiny hole, stick tweezers in there, press lightly, and the watch starts right back up. Put the protective sticker back, then put the rest of the watch back together. Done.
Casio digitals are the second easiest watches to replace the battery, depending on model. The AE1000W is easy, as is the AE1200WH, W218H, W800HG, and others. One that I know is not easy at all to replace the battery is the AE1500WH (the strap has to come off), but that's an outlier. The majority of Casio digitals keep it simple.
It is a good idea to have a small watch repair kit to make replacing the battery on a Casio easier. I have one, and have used it several times. You get the little jeweler's screwdrivers and the appropriate tweezers needed. Even if you don't use the other stuff in the kit, believe me, it is worth the buy. You don't want to be futzing about looking for those tools when you need them just to replace a battery. Better to have everything in a little kit with its own little case you can zip up and put away until needed again.
Casio is second easiest for battery replacement, but the absolute easiest isn't Casio, it's almost any Swatch watch. You absolutely don't need a watch press or any other specialized tools. In fact, no tools are required at all. All you need is a coin to take out the battery from the rear, put in the new one, done.
Swatch is the watch that could convince even the most diehard mechanical watch fan to go quartz just because of how stupidly easy it is to replace a battery in one. Which battery is used depends on model, so it could be a CR1220, CR2016, CR2032 or possibly something else. But no matter what it is, getting to the battery for replacement is ridiculously simple.
I may get a Swatch one of these days, but for now, I'm okay replacing batteries in my Casios.
navigation without drama
To my amazement, I'm still using the Drive 53 I bought about a month ago. The reason for the amazement is that I own better models, with one of them being the 7" screen 76. I could use that right now if I wanted, but instead, I use the 5" 53 that has no traffic reporting, no Bluetooth, no Wi-Fi, no voice control, and I'm getting along with it quite well.
There are several reasons I really get along with the 53, but one sticks out in particular that I didn't expect.
I described the I'm Done Moment recently, but there's another one, the I'm Good Moment, as in, "Yeah, I'm good. This works."
With the 76 and a few other models I have, you can talk to it to issue commands, like it's right out of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That might sound cool, but it isn't for me. I've never liked talking to a computer to make it do something. In fact, I hate it and always have. It doesn't matter what computer it is. Talking to a computer is annoying, stupid, and causes stress; this is especially true if you have to repeat yourself just to make the stupid computer understand your command.
I had the I'm Good Moment with the 53, which I didn't expect at all, and it occurred due to the lack of "advanced" features. The 53 doesn't have voice control, so it's not even an option. And I am 100% okay with that.
The lack of other advanced features in the 53 has actually made driving more enjoyable, and I didn't expect that either. There's less drama in the drive overall.
I'm using navigation now that's more or less the same experience as it was in the late 2000s. The screen might be new, but with a back-to-basics yesteryear navigation style. As it turns out, that's exactly what I prefer.
i don't know the price of a haircut
Every time I shave my head, I still have a hard time fully realizing how much money I save every time I do it.
Given I legitimately did not know what the price of men's haircut was before I started writing this, I did some research and found out.
Let's start with answering this question: What is the price of a men's haircut?
After answering this, I'll also tell you how much the cost is when you shave your own head.
The absolute rock bottom price before tax and tip that I could find at some dumpster fire national haircut chain is $22, and that's before tax. Assuming you're a cheapskate that will only tip 15% and no more than that, the price with tax and tip then goes up to almost $27.
What you're supposed to do is get your hair cut once monthly. I don't do that, but let's say I did.
Leaving aside that $27/mo just for a man's haircut is ridiculous, that means I'd be spending $324 a year just for hair. And again, that is the rock bottom price for the lowest cost haircut.
When not being a total cheapskate and going to a hair place that isn't a total dumpster fire, the price is $30 before tax, and the tip is 20%. After tax+tip, now the cost is $38 per haircut every month or about $457/year. And we're still in "low" price territory.
Then comes the average price. These are barber shops where the prices aren't listed on the web site at all nor on the door at the shop. The price with tax+tip now goes up to $51 or about $610/year.
For highfalutin barbershops, the total price bumps up to about $83, and by that point it's basically $1,000/year just for monthly haircuts.
At any of these shops, there is also no guarantee whatsoever that your hair will actually be cut correctly to your liking. Chances are likely that the cut you get will suck. It doesn't matter whether you go to the dumpster fire shop, regular shop, or the highfalutin one. Your cut will look like ass regardless of what you pay.
Now let's compare that to the price of a proper trimmer kit + micro trimmer. The micro trimmer is optional, but I recommend getting one anyway for trimming hair around the ears. It's that spot right near the top of the ear that can be difficult to trim hair with a full size trimmer. A micro trimmer makes it easy to do touch-ups for those little areas.
The cost of those two things pays for itself after two head shaves, or one head shave from a highfalutin barbershop with plenty of cash to spare.
The process (with bonus luxury tips)
Take the hair trimmer and attach the #1 guard, as in the red one.
There is a lever on the side of the trimmer with two positions, long and short. Set to long, which makes the shave head stick out longer.
Shave your head. Remember to go in all directions, especially around the crown.
Set the lever on the side of the trimmer to the short position.
Shave your head again.
Trim with micro trimmer around the ears.
Hit the shower.
For extra added luxury, there are two other things you can do after showering. Do one or both, your choice.
Put a small amount of Noxzema (or CeraVe if your skin is super sensitive) in your hands, rub hands together, rub that over your head. Once done, wet your hands and rub your head to wash that off, then pat try with a towel.
Put a splash of Pinaud Clubman aftershave lotion on the face, even if you haven't shaved your face. The one that "smells like barbershop" is the original, meaning not vanilla and not bay rum. This very specific scent is something a lot of guys chase after but didn't know what it was called. Now you know what it is.
Shaving my head gets easier every time I do it
I'm specifically talking about the psychological impact.
Shaving your head is in fact easy, but being comfortable with it is a different story, because that takes time.
I am mostly comfortable with it. Whenever I shave my head, I still have that "Whoa, what did I just do?" feeling right after I'm done. This used to last for a couple of days, but now only lasts for about an hour.
What's making it easier each time is the older I get, the more annoyed I get with hair.
When my hair grows out, the most annoying thing by far is how it shags out in the back just above the neck and shags along with getting wiry above the ears. Regardless of what shampoo or conditioner I use, that shag and wiry crap will happen, and it annoys the bejeezus out of me.
Then the moment comes where I think oh, I can probably fix this by getting a better shampoo, and... NOPE. STOP. My brain kicks in, and I know it's time to do a head shave. Shortly after that, I'm in the bathroom with clippers out and doing the deed. It's not even a question of should I do it, I just do it.
Just like the price of haircuts will send you to the poorhouse, the cost of shampoos, conditioners and whatever other goop is out there can do the same. I can see spending money on Noxzema or CeraVe, a nice aftershave lotion, and maybe a cologne (I'm still a Jovan Musk fan), but not shampoos and conditioners. Nope. I know that no matter what, my middle aged hair is going to shag and go wiry when it grows out, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it.
Okay, that's not true. I could see a stylist once a month and have her chemically bring body and fullness back to my hair. And it would be a woman performing the service due to it being a salon thing. I'm not doing that.
The price of getting a haircut was the primary reason I started shaving my head in the first place. But in all honesty, even if I were a millionaire, I'd still be shaving my head once every few months. Money doesn't fix the fact that most barbers give bad haircuts. Money would fix the shag/wiry crap my hair does, but what it doesn't fix is having to take time out of my life to go to the salon over and over again.
Relief best describes how I feel after a head shave. There's that negative emotion crap that happens at first, but then after about an hour passes, I calm down, and that's when the happy happens. When the hair is shaggy and stupid, that's a problem. When the head gets shaved, the problem is solved.
There was a time however that even with that relief, what I used to do after a head shave was wear a hat for a few days whenever I went out. But then I realized that was stupid and nobody cares, so I stopped doing the hat thing. I'm glad I realized this, because I don't even like wearing a hat.
At this point, the I'm Done Moment now comes sooner than later. And by that I mean, "I'm done dealing with this shag/wiry mess on my head. I'm done paying way too much for a haircut I won't even like. I'm done with shampoos and conditioners because none of them work. I'M DONE."
There used to be hesitation after the I'm Done Moment before I marched to the bathroom and plugged in the clippers. Not anymore. When I'm done, I'm done, and to the bathroom I go. Yes, there's still that hour of slight depression after a head shave. After that hour, that emotion changes to a nice sense of relief, then I get on with my life.
fighting with fonts
Fonts are something I've been battling with for about 30 years. Maybe slightly longer.
Based on customer reviews I've read, some who buy the Garmin Drive 53 think it's too small as a 5" screen. I know it's not because I use it myself. Bear in mind I also own a DriveSmart 76 that has a 7" screen.
The perceived smallness of the 53 isn't because of physical size. It's the font.
I'll talk about Windows 11 in a moment which is its own can of worms, but if you compare the 53 to the old nuvi 50 from the early 2010s, you would be shocked at how much more legible the 50 is.
That 50, even though a 5" and a matte screen, has legibility that outdoes 7" screens and all smartphones. Yes, all of them.
Why? Bright, daylight readable screen, and the font used. I don't know the name of the font, but it's the near-equivalent of the most legible font ever used in Microsoft Windows, Verdana.
It takes a 7" navigator to almost equal the legibility of the 5" nuvi 50. Yes, I said almost. The 50 is absolutely top dog.
You'll be left scratching your head as to why a 5" outdoes a 7" screen, because people think a physically larger screen means better legibility. Nope. If the font is done wrong, you're not going to be able to read that display no matter what.
The 50's font is big, wide, and ideal for automotive use. In addition, the top left arrow and distance indicator is white with thick black outline against a dark green field. And the map acts the same way with its route arrow. That's perfection.
With Garmin's modern UI for the Drive/DriveSmart, gone is that wonderful Verdana-like font, replaced with a more difficult-to-read skinny Arial type. The font size also got smaller, and that nice black font outline is gone from the top left field as well.
Garmin could, if they wanted to, add in a simple option to the Drive/DriveSmart UI settings to increase or decrease font size. Or better yet, add in the ability to change size and/or BOLD the font. That's never happened, and I doubt it ever will, because that would just make too much sense.
UI designers don't seem to realize that everybody hates skinny fonts with glyphs that smash into each other.
Remember how in Windows you used to be able to change the menu font size and bold (or even italicize) it if you wanted to? And remember how that DID NOT affect the font sizes in programs? That's been gone for years. All you have now in Windows 11 from Accessibility > Text Size is one slider to increase/decrease the global system font. Can you change that font? Nope! Can you bold that font? Nope! You get a slider bar that affects the system font that you can't change system wide, which includes programs. This means increasing the font size increases it everywhere, including places you don't want the font size increased. Lovely, eh? That's modern UI hell.
Modern UI hell is also in all smartphones. It absolutely does not matter how large your phone screen is, nor how high of a resolution it has. Your font is going to be skinny garbage that looks like a family-sized bucket of ass no matter what. Can you change the font? Yes. Your other choices will be other skinny font garbage. Regardless of what you pick, it will be nothing more than different flavors of ass.
"Glyphs that smash into each other" is exactly what happens when the font is too skinny. The skinniness refers to both line thickness and glyph width. Verdana or its Linux equivalent DejaVu Sans does not have this problem whatsoever. Glyphs are wide, dots over lowercase letters i and j are easily seen, bold truly means bold, and the font is good. Take away the glyph width and go skinny, and the font is bad, style be damned.
What glyph smashing does is make a font appear to "vibrate". You could have perfect 20/20 vision and that crap will still happen with a glyph-smasher font, effectively ruining usability.
"But 'crispness' of a font counts!", you may argue. Nope.
Using a watch as an example, some men purposely buy Seiko diver watches because the hour indices are big dots or thick sticks, the hands are thick, and one of the two hands will be an arrow, depending on model. Legibility is guaranteed, and you will never confuse one hand with the other. If the watch had skinny hands, that's a no-go because legibility is ruined. At certain times of the day, the hands would "blur" together.
It doesn't get any more "crispy" for appearance than an analog watch dial, and if THAT has issues with skinny hands screwing up legibility, what makes you think a skinny glyph-smasher font would be any better on an electronic display? I'll answer that for you. It's not.
"Get your eyes checked" is not a valid argument.
The reason I know this isn't a valid argument is because I've seen proper user interfaces that use the correct fonts, and know that the trash offered today is vastly inferior.
Some devices, such as the old Garmin nuvi 50, got it right the first time.
With my phone, I've had my fights with it. I found a way to bold the fonts on the home screen, and wow, that wasn't easy. What I have isn't great, but at least it's than the awful skinny font trash look it had by default. Fortunately, my texting app does have its own individual font settings. Being that's what I read most, at least that's taken care of.
When it comes to the operating system I use, Linux saved the day.
Were I using Windows 11, I would have to buy a physically larger monitor (probably a 27" display size) just to compensate for the lack of font customization in modern Windows.
Since I'm using Linux, I was able to keep using my existing 24" monitor. All that was required were a few minor font size tweaks here and there that Windows USED to have, but were taken away.
It's probably possible to tweak Windows 11 to get the font settings/sizes I'd want with registry edits. But that's not really a solution, is it?
It used to be true that to tweak Linux font settings, you had to manually edit complicated configuration files, but that's no longer the case since it's all in the GUI. Now it's Windows where you have to do complicated registry edits to get the fonts how you want whereas you didn't have to do that before.
Funny how the script flipped like that.