We are sorry to be leaving the King's Inn on South Hotel Circle. The room rates are more than reasonable, the pool+spa is nicely done, the rooms are quiet and the staff are friendly and helpful. It must be a good place to work. It's certainly a good place to stay. Unfortunately we will be leaving in a couple of hours, headed north to Pasadena to spend a few hours with Evalyn's wealthy cousin Bonnie, whom we haven't seen in .. let's see now .. it must be fifteen years, possibly longer. We had a fun visit last time, I hope for another. Then it's on to North Hollywood for a stay of several days with our high school friend Carolann Bennett, widowed suddenly last winter after a second marriage that lasted roughly thirty years. She is only just now coming out of her shell of grief, which is what she gets for not having sat shiva the way her dead Jewish husband Joel would have wanted her to. Oh well, maybe our visit will help.
As I write this it'ss 4:22am local time. Since my watch is set to standard time for Colorado and I never change it, the watch reads correctly for Pacific Daylight Time. I don't change my watch because I'm running an experiment. I want to know how much time the watch will have gained by the coming New Year's Eve since it was set when the ball dropped in Time Square to user in 2014. That was 20 months ago, during which time the watch has gained a grand total of ... drum roll, please ... 22 seconds. When you hear about a with performance like this one's you can be quite certain it is one of two kinds. It will be either a) a $8500 Gran Seikos from a high end jewelry store, or b) a $50 Timex from a place like WalMart. Mine is of the second variety, and it looks almost identical to the Rolex Tru Beat watch that was marketed to the medical profession sixty years ago, its main feature being ... drum roll, please ... a second hand that jumped from one second to the next.
Not all Timex watches are as accurate as mine, but when you hear of an inexpensive watch that is extraordinarily accurate, with 99% probability it is a Timex. Those folks have the most highly automated production lines in the world, and their equipment for cutting, trimming and then calibrating the vibrating crystals that regulate the timekeeping of digital watches is the best in the world. If you want a super accurate watch but don't have a lot of money to spend, buy twenty Timex watches of a design you like and then discard the nineteen whose performance you're not satisfied with. The survivor will have cost you a thousand dollars but it will be more accurate than a randomly chosen $8500 Gran Seiko.
I ran certain experiments years ago and know that I can control the time reported by my Timex to within a couple of tenths of a second. If it's slow I simply wear it 24x7 and it will catch up at the rate of about a seond a month. If it's fast I put it in the refrigerator where it will lose time at the rate of about half a second per day. However, the current experiment consists of simply wearing the watch 24x7 and checking its performance roughly monthly. It gains time more rapidly in the winter than in the summer. While this sounds at first like a conflict with my refrigerator remarks, there is a perfectly valid technical reason why this should be so. However, Dear Reader, you must trust me that it would talk many paragraphs of soporific discourse on the architecture of modern digital watches for you to grasp the reason. You have better things to do with your time, and I must wrap this post since I hear Evalyn beginning to stir.