dental adventures so far this year
As I write this, I just came back from the dentist. A second abscess formed that needed to be removed, this time on the upper gum. It was a small one, but needed to be done. The first abscess was on the lower gum, and that one was large. I had that taken care of in late 2025.
Any time an abscess forms, as in that hard bump, yes, it absolutely has to be taken care of. If not taken care of, that leads to major dental problems later. Not issues. Problems. As in very painful problems.
Were these abscesses my fault? They might have been.
A brief history of me and my teeth:
In my teens and 20s, I went to the dentist when I had to, but wasn't good with my dental care.
In my 30s, I started going to the dentist a lot more. Any time I had anything go wrong even to the slightest degree, I'd book an appointment at the dentist, go, and just get it over with. During this decade of my life, many cavities repaired, several fillings put in, along with a few crowns and root canals.
In my early 40s, mostly the same.
In my late 40s, this is when I finally started getting serious with my dental care. I learned the "modified Bass brushing technique", and flossed way more often. However, for whatever stupid reason, I thought all toothpaste was bad. While my brushing technique was great (and I also switched out for a new toothbrush once a month like clockwork), and my flossing was also great, no toothpaste used at all...
...and that's when I got my first abscess.
But even after I got that fixed, I still didn't go back to toothpaste.
Now before continuing, a couple of things.
First, make no mistake that oh yes, I was really good about brushing, and once or twice weekly used baking soda as a toothpaste. You can't use baking soda every day because it's too abrasive, but once or twice weekly is fine as long as it's spread 2 to 3 days apart. For example, brush with baking soda on Monday, water-only for Tue/Wed, baking soda on Thursday, water-only for Fri-Sat-Sun, repeat. And since I know some would be curious, the way to brush with baking soda is to put a teaspoon of it dry in the hand, take your toothbrush with the other hand, wet bristles, dip into the baking soda, brush normally. Dip the bristles into the baking soda a few times during brushing. The taste of baking soda is slightly salty, nothing crazy.
Second, I was also very good about flossing.
But even with all that in check, a few months later I feel a second abscess starting to form high on the upper gum.
"Oh, hell no...", I said to myself.
This is when I changed up how I brush and floss.
When the first abscess happened, that thing kept growing and got fairly large pretty quick.
This time around, I didn't want that happening, so this is what I did:
First, it was back to all the stuff I thought was "bad" before.
This started with Sensodyne Extra Whitening. It worked, but burned my gums a bit. Switched over to Colgate Optic White Advanced. My gums liked this a lot better.
For floss, Reach Waxed Unflavored, although generic grocery store floss pretty much does the same job (but does shred more easily).
For mouthwash, I refuse to use anything with coloring in it, so I went with Listerine Total Care Alcohol Free "Extra Mild", which is totally clear like a proper mouthwash should be.
As for my toothbrushes, again I switch out for a new one once monthly (every 1st of the month) and just buy whatever is available. However, I did switch over to an extra soft toothbrush. I can handle soft just fine, but needed to go extra soft for what I'm about to explain next.
Second, it was time to change around my brushing technique. Again.
A modified Bass brushing technique totally works, but I modified that even further by brushing not just above the gum lines but way higher and way lower. I would brush my teeth first for front and back as usual, but then brush over as much gum as possible. Everywhere I could brush, I did, and still do.
Regular soft bristle toothbrushes made my gums too sore, hence the reason I switched to extra soft. And as I discovered, I can get my teeth just as clean with extra soft as I can with soft, so I stuck with it.
Third, it was time to increase how often I brushed.
I now brush way more often. Instead of twice daily, it's now 3 to 5 times. Basically any time after I eat anything, even if just a snack. Flossing is included.
When that upper gum abscess formed, I had one goal. Stop the growth of it and see if it goes away on its own.
The growth of it did stop and it stayed small, but after a month it wasn't showing any signs of going away, which is why going to the dentist was required to get rid of it.
HOWEVER... there's still the question of whether the abscesses were my fault in the first place for not using toothpaste.
I believe the answer is yes and no.
The upper gum abscess was fairly close to where I had some root canal work done in the past. Sometimes it just happens where something on the inside of the gum just decides to get infected near where root canal work was done before, even if it was years ago.
But, sometimes an abscess can happen from something as stupid as a piece of spice that got stuck in the gum and was never cleared out, such as a tiny peppercorn flake. Something that small is something you can't see nor feel, and if it stays there, yeah, an abscess can form just from that.
That abscess I had on the upper gum was fairly high up there, so what I think happened is that it was a combination of a reaction from prior root canal work, not brushing extra high up on the gum, and not using a mouthwash to really clear out everything up there (I had used just water prior).
For all I know, it might have very well been a piece of spice that got stuck up there, and the reason the growth stopped is because I was finally cleaning all the gum area properly.
I am now all-in with toothpaste, flossing, mouthwash, and modified brushing technique that covers everywhere. All the teeth, all the gums. Brushed, flossed, rinsed, and done often.
Heck, I might even get a copper tongue scraper and probably will, because supposedly that's good for the mouth also.
I'm probably.. correction.. I know I'm taking better care of my mouth better than I ever have before in my life. Abscesses suck, and I intend on never having one ever again. True, there was no pain involved with either, but that's because I had them both fixed before they became a problem.
3 weeks in with the squier sonic stratocaster
Some people think I keep all the guitars I've ever bought. Not true. The personal rule I've been using for years is for any new guitar that comes in, one must go out. If I didn't do that, I'd have a big pile of guitars that would never get played.
So it's been 3 weeks in with the Squier Sonic Stratocaster. The guitar is technically still within the return window period, so I could return if it I wanted. Will I? No, I'm keeping it, because it is the good "happy place" guitar I was looking for. Very familiar, very comfortable. Like I said recently, this guitar is home to me.
I've come to realize something in owning this guitar that I'm still trying to wrap my head around.
I absolutely have no desire to own a Fender guitar.
Does this have to do with price? I'll answer that in a minute.
I feel no magic with the Fender brand anymore. There is absolutely no guitar they make where I feel even a passing interest in it.
Part of this has to do with the fact I've met all the heroes, so to speak. This included what was formerly a dream guitar of mine, the 1969 Fender Stratocaster. At the time I strummed on a real-deal one back in 2022, it was selling for $18,500.
Why is it no longer a dream guitar? Simple answer, I held and played it. I met the hero. As the old saying goes, don't meet your heroes. Well, I did, felt the CBS cheapness of the time it was made and said well, that's that. Nice to see one and experience it, but like hell if that thing is worth 5 figures.
Then Squier released the redesigned Affinity Stratocaster that absolutely has that late-'60s/early-'70s big CBS headstock, and I bought one. Had my fill of that, then traded it out later. No desire to go back to the big headstock since, even if it still does look cool as hell.
Also throughout the years I've picked up and played (but not bought) a bunch of different Fenders, with the most recent being a boat-anchor-weight '79. Prior to that, a brand new Player II in British Racing Green.
Not once have I ever felt the magic from playing any Fender I picked up, new or old. And there has never been an instance where I tried one and then regretted not buying it later.
However, that has happened with Squier. One of my sorta/kinda regrets was not buying a Squier Classic Vibe Stratocaster years ago that was discounted deep because of its color, Burgundy Mist, with color matched headstock. Absolutely nobody wanted it. That thing was in the store for weeks, had dust on it, but was new. Everybody gave it a miss because of the color. When I played it, it was one of those ultra rare instances where the guitar played and sounded great in the store, but I didn't commit to it. Why? It was actually the headstock that turned me off the most. A gold Squier logo on a purple headstock was doing nothing for me. Were it a silver logo, I'm pretty sure I would have committed and bought it.
And there was one other sorta/kinda regret that was much more recent. Playing a Squier Sonic Stratocaster HT in Arctic White and not getting it. White-on-white Strats with maple fingerboard usually look weird, but not that one. Since the neck on the Sonic I have now is the same goodness that was on that HT, I really don't feel any regret passing on that one. Well, maybe a little, but I'll get over it.
Oh, and I did find out something else recently. Not a regret but a possible future buy. I've not tried this one yet, but Squier does have a Classic Vibe HT in Surf Green. Never seen one in person because not too many guitar stores carry it, but I'm sure that's a great player.
That CV HT is a great example of how Squier has got the stuff where I think yeah, cool, I'd love to have that guitar. I get genuinely excited. There's some actual magic there. But for Fender, I feel nothing...
...and this is where I talk about price.
I have tried, many times, to like Fender. This is why I keep trying out guitars made by them. In the back of my mind, whenever I pick one up, I'm thinking, "Okay. This will be the The One and it's totally gonna happen this time", and... nope. Disappointed again. Then I see the price tag. "They want four figures FOR THIS?!" Back on the hanger it goes.
If the Fender had the look, feel, sound and most importantly the magic, as in that thing that makes you want to play guitar in the first place, then it would be worth it. But it doesn't.
Sure, I'll still try a Fender here and there whenever I'm in a guitar store, because why not. But these days, I only do it just because FeNdEr, OoOoOOoo AaAaAhh, play for a minute or two, get disappointed, see the price tag, feel disgust, and then I buy a Squier that looks right, feels right, sounds right, is priced right, and go home happy. That's the routine.
It's almost like I need to be reminded periodically why not to buy Fender brand.
And in all honesty, it's not really an issue of how much a Fender is. If the Fender had the magic, then a four-figure price tag would be truly be a small price to pay to get it. But that magic just isn't there.
Then I pick up the cheapest Strat Squier makes and whammo, there's the magic I was looking for.
Why do certain Squiers like the Sonic have the magic for me and not Fender? It's not just the low price, although that is a factor and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't. The larger factor (in fact, much larger) is guitar playing life experience.
Given how many electric guitars I've owned over the years, at this point I know well in advance what would annoy me with just about any guitar on the wall at the guitar store before even touching it. I may write something up about that later and probably will.
In the end, the Sonic is good and it's staying with me.
incredibly stupid customer survey email
Remember how I said that Google and banks do dumb stuff with email?
Other companies do this crap too, and oh wow, did I receive a doozy of one.
I go to an office to do a thing, and get the thing done. No problems.
Three days later, an email comes in that went straight to spam, but the subject line suggested it might not be, so I took a look at it...
...and oh, yikes, no wonder this thing went straight to spam.
This is what the email had going on:
- Used a From: address that was the company name even though the company obviously wasn't the one that sent it.
- Sent using amazonses.com mail servers instead of the company's mail servers.
- Mail headers reveal an X-Envelope-From that absolutely and totally does not match the company name at all.
- Mail headers reveal the email was sent using a very sketchy sounding Perl script.
- Email contains insecure http:// links to a .co domain FOUR TIMES.
- Email contains two insecure http:// image embeds that are mail beacons using a separate mystery .com domain.
So then.
This email has got spoofing, insecure links all over the place, mixed content, and insecure image calls to mail beacons.
Oh, and this at the end:
(Company name I've never heard of) is committed to protecting your privacy.
Yeah, I doubt that.
That office I went to obviously sold my personal data, which all companies do these days even if they say they don't. That data gets in the hands of some other company who flew out one of the worst emails I've seen in a while.
I looked up that other company. It's an outfit not even based in the US, but rather in the UK. And on their home page is this crap:
Navigate disruption with AI-enabled insights and expert advisory
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER, WE GOT SOME AI SLOP GOING ON.
So then.
A US company sells off personal data to a UK company whose "tools" are nothing but vibe coded AI slop, who then in turn sends out ridiculously insecure customer survey emails that are guaranteed to land in spam folders.
For a company that is "committed" to protecting my privacy, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
If that doesn't say 2026, I don't know what does.
4-figure rolling car payments
Lately, I've been watching a bunch of videos showing people who have ridiculous car payments due to negative equity, a.k.a. being "upside down". Buyer finances a car. Later on the car breaks and/or buyer can't afford the payments anymore (usually the latter). Buyer goes to dealership to get a less expensive car to lower car payments. The remainder of the auto loan for the existing car is higher than what the car is worth. All that crap is factored into the new loan for the replacement car.
Ultimately, what happens is that the payment is actually lowered, but the loan term is some ridiculous 72-month thing where a) the replacement car will be something very used with probably over 100K miles on it already, b) the loan will absolutely outlast the life of the car, and c) the buyer will never be able to pay it off. This process repeats for years until the buyer ends up in financial ruin.
Then there's me, a middle aged guy driving a car with over 170K miles on it.
I'll get back to that in a minute.
The other day I made a quick run to a convenience store, and observed the other cars I saw on the road.
I know that any car I see under 10 years old is financed, and the monthly payment for it is ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it's leased or bought.
When I think about it, I should probably stretch that to every car I see under 15 years old probably has a car payment attached to it.
There are only two types of cars I see that I know are paid in full.
First, beat up work vans, which includes minivans. I include the minivan because I do see guys that can and do take those mom-mobiles, yank out all the rear seats, drill on a roof rack to carry around ladders and such, and that's the work vehicle. What used to be owned by a mom to carry kids to school is now owned by a man, who proceeded to stuff it with electrical, plumbing or gardening equipment and uses it for work. A van is a van, after all.
Second, cars just like mine, which are older low-optioned subcompacts. These are little hatchback or sedan gas cars that get 35-40 highway MPG. They all have over 125K miles on them, all have chipped paint, dents, scratches, faded plastics, and so on.
The vans are actually worth something because guys are willing to pay for one as long as it works. A van is just a big metal box so a guy can carry his stuff to job sites to do work and get paid. And since they were designed to be serviced, they can be repaired as long as the frame is still good.
Old subcompacts however are worth next to nothing. The purpose of a low-optioned subcompact is to get from A to B. A subcompact has little storage, little power, isn't as comfortable as a larger car, and doesn't tow. Yes, they get good fuel efficiency, but that doesn't increase the on-paper value at all.
The real value of an old low-optioned subcompact comes from long term ownership. The less options there are, the less there is to break. As long as the suspension holds up (or at least can be repaired) and the drivetrain doesn't grenade itself, this is a car that can run 250K to 300K miles in the cheapest way possible.
What that basically means is if the subcompact has a known good engine and the transmission is an automatic or manual, it can last the very long haul. If it's CVT, it's junk no matter who made it.
The problem...
...is that almost nobody makes a car like this anymore new. The only one left right now is the new Nissan Versa S FWD with manual transmission.
I only have one knock against that car. No option for remote keyless entry. You have to use the key to lock/unlock the door. But it has everything else. AC, power windows, power locks, 35 MPG highway on regular unleaded, cruise control, USB ports, it's all there.
That Versa is the kind of car you could run to 200K miles and beyond. While I'm not in the market for a car since the one I have works, if I did get that Versa, I'd take it to a shop to have keyless entry installed.
Do keyless entry kits exist? Yes, they do, and they're cheap. If the car already has power locks, keyless via fob can be added in. So if I wanted to be super cheap (and I most likely would be), I could install the keyless myself.
The only thing that doesn't make that Versa manual a god-tier level bargain is that it's not a hatchback with manual hatch release. If it were, that would be perfection, because cargo space is increased, and now it's a good hauler. Not a big hauler, but still, really good. And no electronic popper to break since it would just be a manual latch.
Even though it's a sedan, I would tell anyone that knows how to drive a manual that if you want a new car right now, go get that Versa manual and add in the keyless yourself. And buy the car with the intent of driving it until the wheels fall off. Don't even think about resale value.
casio w738h, the awful repackaged w736h
I just mentioned the W221H, which again I may get, but in all honesty is probably something I'll give a miss to. But then there's the new W738H, which is supposedly going to be released in the US this month May 2026. Casio Singapore already has a product page up for it.
This is another one of those models where Casio gets it but at the same time they don't.
I own the W735H. The W736H has an identical case with identical features to the W735H, except the LCD panel is arranged slightly differently.
Both the W735H and W736H are what I call I-don't-care watches, as both are seriously fugly. More on that in a moment.
The W738H is functionally identical to the W736H with exactly the same LCD appearance, save for that the case and strap are different. The W738H is smaller, thinner and 7g lighter in weight. It also comes in three colorways. 1AV, a black case people will like but with a silver bezel everybody will hate. 1BV, an all-black case that everybody will love but with negative display everybody will hate. 3AV, an ugly olive color case with black bezel and olive strap that only those who couldn't get the black/silver one will buy. And on all of them, the strap is the same garbage on the W221H.
Oh, and for the 1AV black w/silver bezel version, the one most likely to sell best, it has a purple button at bottom right for no good reason. Yes, purple. It's just there, proud as can be.
The only way to get one of these that isn't an embarrassment to wear would be to buy the black/silver positive display and the all-black negative display, swap the positive LCD module into the all-black case (which thankfully does not have a purple button on it), ditch the strap for something better, and then you've finally got something respectable.
At least with the W735H/W736H, the ugly there is on full display. The W738H however is trying to look better, but Casio just could not resist with the ugly crap. This is why I say Casio gets it but at the same time they don't.
The biggest insult of the W738H, just like with the W221H, is that strap.
With the W738H, even if you could deal with its ugly points, that strap has to be junked. And that means buying that model is not a one-and-done. You have to factor in cost of watch and strap at bare minimum.
Heck, even the W218H-1AV, a super basic model (I have two), has a better strap.
When I first saw the W738H, I actually really wanted it. But that was before I saw the Casio W738H product page with better photos. When I saw that bad strap and purple case button, my decision of whether to buy or not once available was made right there and then.
Nope.