The clock is wrong
Time zones and Daylight Savings Time are really annoying to deal with.
Part of the reasoning for buying a watch with atomic timekeeping is so that it automatically adjusts for time zone changes when traveling and when DST happens twice a year.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't even bother with time zones nor DST anymore.
What would we use? Universal Coordinated Time, as in UTC, the same thing that pilots use. All pilots use UTC for flight schedules as far as I'm aware. Why? Because it eliminates confusion and complications. All the pilots use the same clock so everybody is on the same page, and that makes sense.
I'm also of the opinion that we should ditch AM and PM for time as well and use 24-hour time instead. Why? Again, to eliminate confusion. The two places in daily life where people could appreciate this the most is when looking at business schedules and setting alarms.
For a business schedule, if the sign showing the business hours on the door states they're open at 9 AM and close at 12 AM, it's guaranteed there will be people that confuse the midnight closing time as 12 PM, leading them to believe that business is only open for 3 hours a day. However, if the sign stated they open at 9:00 and close at 0:00, there is no confusion at all as to when they close, because 0 is always midnight.
For setting an alarm, it is way too easy to mistakenly set the hour as AM when you wanted PM or PM when you wanted AM. In 24-hour time, setting an alarm for 9 absolutely means the morning hour of 9 and not an evening hour, because in 24-hour time, 9pm is 21. I guarantee you would never confuse 9 for 21 or vice versa.
At the time I write this it's 12:25pm CDT (Central Daylight Time). The UTC time is 17:25. Believe me, it would be so unbelievably convenient if the time was always UTC. It would be fantastic if I never had to worry about time zones or DST ever again.
I wouldn't have a problem adjusting to UTC because I already have a Casio watch that can show local time and UTC at the same time, meaning it would only take me a few days to adjust to UTC. It really would not be a problem.
The awful television of 1981
This is awful, but still comforting.
The very-early '80s, generally speaking, was an awful time for television. However, being that television was the #1 form of home entertainment then, people were very willing to watch bad television shows.
To put this in perspective, these were the top American television shows of 1981: 60 Minutes, One Day at a Time, Alice, The Jeffersons, M*A*S*H, Three's Company, Too Close For Comfort, The Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas.
Even if you have a passing familiarity with those shows and are thinking, "Wow, that's not exactly a stellar lineup", again, those were the TOP shows of '81. Everything after that was downhill from there.
I was really young in '81, but even I can even remember television just being bad back then. All I really cared about were cartoons, The Dukes of Hazzard and not much else (bear in mind The A-Team and Knight Rider weren't released yet). If I wasn't watching those shows, I would have been playing games on the family Atari 2600 video game system or playing outside.
A very good example of how bad television was in '81 is Tush, which is pronounced like tuh-sh and not toosh, named after Bill Tush.
I have a full episode of Tush below, but before you watch it, let me explain to you how bad this show was.
Ted Turner wanted a comedy/variety show, so he threw a bunch of money at Bill to do it, who already had working experience at WTCG channel 17 in Georgia, which Turner owned. WTCG would change over to "SuperStation" WTBS.
Bill, not being one to turn down such a generous offer, said yes.
However, there was a problem.
Bill had no clue how to put together such a program (and is quoted as admitting that).
What did Bill do? He got a set together and then he and crew wrote sketches about what they knew. What did they know? Television show production...
...and there is no such thing as funny television show production people. People in that profession are trained to be competent serious professionals and not funny dudes and ladies. Comedy writers are the ones that make the good jokes and not the people that set up the lights or operate the cameras.
I have some knowledge in this as my college degree is in Video & Radio Production, meaning I know very well that production people, broadcasters, journalists and so on are not exactly good at comedy. In fact, most are awful at it.
Not deterred by any of this, Bill soldiered on. He had a pile of Turner's money, hired some actors, had a set with tens of thousands of dollars worth of video equipment ready-to-use and just went for it.
The end result is Tush.
You can watch it now below or read my thoughts on it below that (which you probably should) first.
Video (on archive.org): Tush Show Late Night Television
The angle the show took was "We're professional television show production people and we're making fun of ourselves. Ha ha! Funny, right?" No. Not funny. At all.
Have you ever been watching the local television evening television news where one of the anchorpeople cracks a joke, it absolutely doesn't land at all (and never does), and the other anchorperson and the meteorologist do the fake-laugh thing before moving on to the next segment? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. The entirety of Tush is exactly that.
People only remember this show for one reason, and it wasn't Bill. Jan Hooks was on this show. Yes, that Jan who was on Saturday Night Live later.
It is safe to say Tush has aged like milk. It was a terrible show even in its time and its badness can still be felt now.
To the show's credit, it was very self-aware. Bill and crew who made this knew it was awful, and the show routinely takes jabs at itself as if to say, "Yeah, we know you're watching a big steaming pile of crap. Sorry." That at least gives a sense of honesty. The show knows it's bad and doesn't make any attempt to prove otherwise.
So what did I mean at top when I said watching stuff like this is comforting?
1981, at the time I write this, was 42 years ago. America and the world in general was very different back then. Not only were there no smartphones and no internet, almost nobody even had a home computer.
In addition, this was a time in America where everything more or less coasted. The cars were boring and bland, but kept up the status quo. In music, disco was totally out but rock 'n' roll wasn't exactly in just yet, so a lot of the music was, again, boring and bland, but kept up the status quo.
The first few years of a new decade is an extension of the last one. 1980 and 1981 might as just have well been 1978 and 1979 and you couldn't tell the difference. Nobody at this time knew what The Next Big Thing was going to be.
Tush is a great example of "everything is boring and we've got some money floating around, so throw a dart at the board and see if you hit a bullseye". Obviously, this show was not a bullseye, but there is a comfort to be had in its unfunny blandness. You don't have to think when watching it. Just sit back, turn off the world for a little while, watch as jokes are trying to be told that don't land at all and immerse yourself in the bland.
How long did Tush last? Production was just one year. After that, reruns ran until '83 and then it was off the air.
Car fans describe the late '70s and early '80s as producing "Malaise Era" cars. Boring, uninspired and slow, but comfy. Tush is Malaise Era television. It's a comedy show that's not funny and hardly entertaining, but it's comfy.
The social stigma of guitars
Letting go of brand is important when it comes to guitars.
This doesn't mean I'll just play any ol' ugly guitar that comes my way and/or something that just looks ridiculous. For example, it's probably true you will never see me playing any guitar with mirror stuff on it. I don't care if it's on the body, pick guard, headstock or anywhere else. If the guitar has mirror-anything, I don't like it.
There's inexpensive good and inexpensive bad when it comes to lower cost guitars.
Inexpensive good is when the guitar looks right, feels right, plays right, sounds right. Inexpensive bad is when you make compromises just to save money with your guitar.
Acceptable compromises are for things you can improve, such as tuner replacements and/or maybe better pickups.
An unacceptable compromise is if the cheaper guitar has a neck that doesn't agree with your hands. You can't fix that. Same goes for the body. If it's a shape you don't like or it's too heavy or too light, you really can't fix that either.
In other words, provided you stay on the inexpensive and good side of things, you're doing all right and it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks of the guitar you play.
I bought another Garmin nuvi 2599
It is absolutely worth having this as a backup for my backup.
While my primary GPS is a Garmin DriveSmart 66, the Garmin nuvi 2599LMTHD outfitted with a proper USB power cable (works on USB alone with no 12V required and enables FM traffic) and a 32GB microSD card is my backup in case the DS66 fails. I like it so much that I bought a second because they're relatively easy to acquire, inexpensive and have monster good legibility.
What I mean by "monster good legibility" is that even though the 2599 is a nine-year-old model from 2014 with only a 5" display, the fonts are easier to read compared to just about anything else. Yes, really. It's also quick to calculate routes, recalculate routes when necessary and easily read during bright daylight driving.
When you're willing to put in the legwork...
...you get something great.
Most people wouldn't want to bother with the 2599 because it's required to buy a 32BG microSD card to fit the latest maps, buy that USB power cable to enable everything, and connect to a PC to get everything updated. Initial setup, said very honestly, takes a good two hours.
But once it's all ready to go, the 2599 is amazing to use even now in 2023.
Other models and phone apps use teeny tiny and/or skinny fonts and/or skinny arrows and/or place other junk on the map that gets in the way. Not the 2599. Fonts are big and easy to read, highway exit number are bold making them super easy-to-read, and it's just a lovely system to use.
Yeah, I know, It's ridiculous to have GPS, backup GPS and a backup for the backup. But I like the 2599 enough to where I thought yeah, this is worth having a copy of.
I read user reviews of nav apps for the phone...
...and it's not pretty.
Developers of phone apps just love using skinny fonts, putting up on-screen boxes of "info" that have nothing to do with your trip whatsoever, and sometimes even change where buttons are.
You may not think that's not a big deal. It is.
Imagine you get in your car one day and instead of the fuel gauge or charge level being on the right, it's on the left due to an "update". You didn't ask for that. It just happened. And you can't switch it back.
Imagine the same thing happened to your speedometer or other gauge.
Now imagine if stuff was moved around and the font size changed to being smaller and skinnier.
How long would it take before you got fed up with that? You'd probably want to punch a hole in a wall the first time it happened. Developers of nav apps for the phone just love changing stuff around. A lot. And it's infuriating.
The 2599 doesn't do any of that crap. Fonts and arrows are big and stay that way. Menus don't shift around, nor do they change. They stay just the way you remember them.
There's value in that.
App developers don't seem to understand that if an app is used for driving, it should be treated like a car gauge that always stays the same. The last thing you want to deal with are gauges that randomly move around from an "update".
Fortunately, all the modern Garmin offerings (such as the Drive 53 I just talked about) act more or less the same way the 2599 does. That's a good thing.
I'm enough of a GPS nerd to where I was willing to put the work into a backup-of-backup 2599 because I like the model that much.
New for 2023: Garmin Drive 53 car navigation
I'm very glad Garmin still makes these.
Garmin recently released the Garmin Drive 53; this is a basic car navigator. I personally use a more advanced model, the Garmin DriveSmart 66. The bigger 76 and 86 are also available.
The North American version of the 53 is a back-to-basics navigator from Garmin, which is something they do very well. It doesn't have Wi-Fi so connecting to a computer is required to update the maps once or twice a year. It doesn't have Bluetooth so you can't connect a phone to it (which in this case is a good thing, I'll talk more on that in a moment). The only two flavors the 53 comes in is either with or without traffic reporting. The Drive 53 & Traffic model means it comes with a charge cable that also acts as a traffic receiver which covers most major cities.
Some may ask why a standalone car navigator is still made today. The answer is that it's necessary.
There are two main reasons for this.
Most people drive a car that's an average of 12 years old
It's 2023 as I write this, and a 12-year-old car means a 2011 model. To put that in perspective, the vast majority of '12 cars didn't have infotainment screens in them. Some had GPS navigation, but if you tried to update a '12 car's navigation system, yeah, good luck with that because that's almost impossible.
If the car, truck or SUV has no infotainment system, just use a phone, right?
No.
Phone coverage is nowhere near where it needs to be in the United States
If you take a look at any phone coverage map (all the phone carriers have one on their web site), you are given the impression you get true nationwide coverage just about anywhere you go in the US.
Do you?
Yes, conditionally.
The condition is that the only real thing you're more or less guaranteed with nationwide phone coverage is the ability to place and receive calls, and send an receive text messages. That's it.
Where navigation is concerned, the ability to place/receive calls and send/receive texts isn't good enough. If you're going to use Google Maps or Waze, it's required to have a strong data connection for those apps to work properly. Try to use either of those outside of a major metro and... well, good luck with that.
When your navigation absolutely has to work everywhere, you get a standalone navigator
Phones work by means of a terrestrial network. A standalone navigator gets its position by receiving a signal from satellites in space. Yes, really, and no, you don't have to pay extra for that as GPS satellites are funded by taxpayer dollars.
How do the maps work if the navigator doesn't connect to the internet? Answer: They're preloaded on to the device.
Does it cost anything to update the maps? No.
How often are the maps updated? Two or three times a year.
How do you update? Garmin Express, which is software provided by Garmin.
Things people complain about with standalone navigators
The #1 complaint is that the map data isn't as up-to-date as Google Maps.
For example, if there's some new apartment complex that was built just three months ago, that obviously won't be in the map data. The workaround for this is to get the coordinates and save as a favorite in the Garmin navigator. For whatever address isn't in the navigator, you can always get the coordinates and get to wherever you're going that way. This is very useful not only for newly constructed places but also anywhere that doesn't have an address defined.
How to get coordinates? If using Windows, load up Google Maps or Bing Maps in a browser and single-right-click the map.
If the coordinates display were 42.637692, -73.166859, this would be typed in as N 42.637692 W 073.166859 in a Garmin navigator. That spot is the parking area next to the Massachusetts Veterans War Memorial Tower on Mount Greylock. Obviously, that place doesn't have an address - but - with a Garmin navigator you can navigate to it when you have the coordinates. And yes, the navigator will work even when all the way up on top of a mountain.
Do you need to remember coordinates? No, because you can punch in the coordinates and save as a favorite in a Garmin navigator, then name the favorite whatever you want. After that, you can choose to navigate to that favorite whenever you need to.
The #2 complaint is that traffic reporting isn't as good as Waze.
Waze works by using crowdsourced reports from Waze users that connect to the internet over a smartphone data connection. Garmin navigators like the 53 don't do that because it doesn't connect to the internet. The 53 "& Traffic" model gets its traffic reports (for mostly highways and city areas) via TMC (Traffic Message Channel). No, you don't have to pay for it and it's automatically enabled if you're in an area with coverage.
There is no way a standalone navigator can compete with an app that uses crowdsourced reports, and there is no way a crowdsourced app can ever be truly good outside of a major metro.
When in the metro, that's where Waze works best because that's where the most cell towers are. When outside the metro, you are always better off with the Garmin - especially anywhere the phone has a weak signal or no signal.
The #3 complaint is "weird routes".
There is no navigation system that gets the route 100% right 100% of the time. Not possible. It doesn't matter what system you use, be it by Garmin, infotainment or your phone.
You will always find Amazon user reviews of Garmin navigators where people gripe and yap about weird routes. You will always find user reviews in the Google Play Store of Google Maps and Waze users that say the same thing.
How do you get better routes? You look at your route first before you go. With a Garmin navigator, once you pick a destination and route is calculated, all you have to do is tap the top green bar to get all the info. If any part of those directions looks weird to you, don't use them. Pick another road and the navigator will auto-recalculate and adjust. This has been a standard feature in Garmin navigators for well over a decade.
Who is the Drive 53 best for?
The Drive 53 is best for anybody that has any reason not to use infotainment or the phone for navigation, simply put.
Maybe you drive an older car. Maybe you travel to places where the phone can't hold a strong data connection. Maybe you prefer a dedicated navigator where the user interface always stays the same (which can't be said for phone apps where "updates" randomly move things around).
Again, if you have any reason not to use infotainment or phone for navigation in a car, then you want a Drive 53. Also remember that if you want the traffic charger cord, make sure to get the Drive 53 & Traffic model, which is $20 more than the no-traffic model.