And make coffee in the morning?

I have a 705. Works very well. Never had any problems.
Could it be that you have a faulty one?
My experience is that Logitech customer support is very good.
Contact them. They may either repair the mouse you have or just send you another one.

If desiccant is too expensive use rice.

Good idea. Thank you. Will do it from now on.

Thank you

Thank you. Mine is a G2.

Thank you.

Thank you.
My thoughts are the same as yours, with only one difference. I want a Z8. Not logical, not sensible, not needed, just want to have one. At almost 92 I do not have a lot of time left to want a Z8 or anything else. Or, it is a bad case of GAS.
And, yes, you are right that the D500 is an excellent camera. I am no expert, but recall reading somewhere that it is one the best cameras Nikon ever made. I bought my first Nikon (Ftn) in 1969 in Japan. After that I had F3, F4, F5, D1 and a bunch of point and shoot Nikons. All of them were bought in Singapore because I visited there annually, prices were lower and Nikon had international warranties for many years. I am not a good photographer, but enjoy a good camera and taking pictures with it for fun and for my line of work. The D500 is the one I am enjoying the most.
As to denoising, you make a good point. I have been using Photoshop to do that for years because I have free (completely legal) access to it. Recently I discovered the free Nero Upscaler (https://ai.nero.com/image-upscaler). It does a great job of improving images.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all for the advice and information. Kind of you to help.
All my lenses (except maybe the 60 mm which I have not tested) work with the D500. They all autofocus with or without a teleconverter. When the 160-600 mm is very extended autofocus does not work always. Not even on a bright sunshiny day.
Since the D500 is so good, it is unfortunate that Nikon is not making a Z equivalent.
What I may do is get the the Z8 and use my current lenses until someone will make a Z equivalent for the 18-300 mm or 18-400 mm lenses. Then get that.
Again, thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have the following Nikon F mount lenses for my Nikon D500:
Nikon 18-300 mm (used handheld when my grandchildren are performing, depends on my distance from the stage).
Tamron 18-400 mm (used handheld when my grand children are performing, depends on my distance from the stage, 100 mm can make a difference).
Tamron 160-600 mm (used on a tripod to photograph birds and squirrels in my backyard or on my neighbor's roof).
(these three lenses are sometimes attached to 1.4X or 2X teleconverters).
Nikon 105 mm macro (use it less after retiring than before).
Pre-digital time Nikon 60 mm macro (not used frequently now).
Has anyone used some or all of these lenses with a Nikon Z8?
If yes, what has your experience been? Do you have any suggestions, recommendations?
I have yet to buy a Nikon Z8, but am thinking about it. Chances of buying one will be better if I will not have to purchase new lenses, skylight filters, etc.
In case it will make any difference: I am nearing 92 and in a wheel chair, but in reasonably good shape for my age. Still know well what keys are for, but sometimes forget where I put them.

Not a direct answer, but maybe I can help. I have a Tamron 150-600 mm lens, and 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, all of which I have used on my D500. In most cases have been happy with the results, specially when the extra reach allowed me to photograph (sometimes in almost a close up) subjects, which were too far or very skittish. One example is a squirrels eating peanuts or almonds. I could photograph how it held and bit into them. Other examples are a hummingbird at rest on a branch (somehow I erased that image and could not recover it), a raven on a roof, a bird on a tree, the faces of my grandchildren performing, two squirrels eating.
Sure, there may have some loss of sharpness. If there was, it neither bothered me, nor mattered to me. What mattered was that I got the photographs.
I think too much is routinely made out of sharpness. My view is that regardless of whether a photograph is sharp or not, it is good, interesting and/or valuable if it conveys information, teaches something and/or it is of an object that could not be photographed otherwise. Of course, there are images (macro, light or electron microscope photographs) which must be absolutely and uncompromisingly very sharp.
All I am saying is that demand/expectations for sharpness should be made one photograph at time. Sometimes it is very important, in other instances moderately so and on occasion it is of minor importance. Of course I am not suggesting that blurry, unclear and out of focus photographs are acceptable.
So, my advice is for you to get both the 1.4X and 2X teleconverters (if you can afford them) and take as many photographs as you can/want. Some you will like others you will not. Regardless, you will have fun.
To all other readers: I am definitely not trying to start an argument. I am only expressing my opinion without belittling anyone else's.