WITHIN THIS VALE
OF TOIL AND SIN
YOUR HEAD GROWS BALD
BUT NOT YOUR CHIN

Do both of your phones fail to connect to ANY bluetooth device, or just to the Galaxy smart watch? If just the watch, it might be worth trying something from Amazon that intrigues you since you can send it back for free if it doesn't connect well.

Admittedly, bluetooth can be occasionally flaky, at least in my experience. (Except between two Apple devices, where I have always had complete reliability.)

I've worn a self winding watch of one sort or another for more than a half century. it's always on, viewable from a lot of different angles, accurate enough for daily purposes, and keeps running as long as I keep wearing it. But I recently decided I would like to have heart rate and steps info available and got an Amazfit Band 7 tracker to wear on the other wrist. It doesn't do phone calls, but does have a sleep monitor as well as a lot of workout functions, of which I only use the Walking one for my semi-weekly workouts. It has 10 alarms you can set - I have 2 set permanently, Sunday wakeup and a daily reminder for evening pills, and the others I set as needed for single use.

It was not expensive, and I refer to the thing regularly throughout the day. A charge usually takes less than an hour, and lasts at least a week, usually closer to 2.

Everything seems to be going USB-C, supposedly due to an EU order that all connectors on devices sold in the EU be USB-C after a certain date. So if that were your only quibble I'd just suggest you get a USB-C charger and move on. Even a cheap one should have enough output to charge a watch quickly.

Where do you get it? I used it in tubes years ago, and have looked for it recently but haven’t been able to find any. I got the impression from somewhere that they’ve been out of business for a while.

Anti-Boeing headlines get clicks these days, so that's the way the "news" is presented. Even if the fault is not very likely to rest on Boeing.

And the airlines had facilities for working on them. I know some of those planes are still flying, but I wonder if most maintenance shops can work on all of the engines.

I guess my real uncertainty comes from the fact that the engines seem to be on top of the wings and can be accessed only from the rear. (I don’t think wing surfaces are usually made for maintenance crews to stand on and work for extended periods, although maybe these wings are.)

Flight testing will show whether the theoretical benefits show up in the real world. As well as currently unidentified problems. I wonder, for example, about the cost/convenience of maintenance on top mounted engines as compared to those slung under a wing. My impression is that radical new designs often, if not usually, have unanticipated problems.

ROTC in college and commissioned 2LT 1965, then 3 years delayed duty while I went to law school (on my dime.) Ordered to active duty as a JAG (with rank of Capt - never was a 1LT) and spent '68-'72 at Beale AFB in Northern CA. Lived with B-52s and SR-71s with their associated tankers. Also had the D-21 drone program on base but nobody knew it - even the Deputy Base Commander didn't know what the 4200 Support Squadron did with their own B-52 in their fully secure and highly classified hangar. Returned to private practice in '72, but all the other lawyers in the office at the time I left stayed on active duty for full careers and retired as Colonels. I've often wondered . . . what if I'd stayed too?

Not sure that's the Devil. According to an eyewitness, "I heard about him but I never dreamed, he'd have blue eyes and blue jeans . . . "

I print a lot (up to 1,000) of B&W images that go into books as Christmas presents for family. When I switched to Canon Pro-10 printers years ago I found that adding a very slight sepia tone gave a more pleasing look on the Red River paper that I use, so I made a Lightroom preset to do that. (I have never gotten comfortable with the Lightroom sync function, which I gather would be another way to do this.)

But that's the only preset that I've ever made.

I seem to recall that the catalog listing for Sears radial arm saw that I bought ~50 years ago said something like "1/4 HP motor produces 1.5 HP." All of their stationary tools had that kind of description. Advertising has always contained a lot of fantasy.

I have a remote key fob for my car, which I wear around my neck on a dogtag chain (along with a door key and a pill bottle with one dose of my daily 8 pill regimen.) I'm retired, and now only wear ties to weddings and funerals, so the keys hang inside my shirt. Still have to think about the wallet and phone, but at least the keys are taken care of. And if for some reason I DO forget, I can't get into the car without going back to find 'em.

I've read that the original plan was to build a tunnel, and work had actually begun on approaches to a tunnel when somebody decided they could save money if they built a bridge instead. (Would be interesting to know if perhaps it was a bridge builder who wasn't going to participate in the tunnel work who got to a decision maker with a bridge-is-cheaper proposal.) So yes, financial savings were behind the original decision to build a bridge, and (I assume) are always present during the design stage of any construction project.

I'd guess that a panel falling off a plane that has been in service for more than a few months is far more likely to be the fault of someone in maintenance than the manufacturer.