Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from A Beautiful Site
It's been awhile since I wrote about FOUCE and I've since come up with an improved solution that I think is worth a post. This approach is similar to hiding the page content and then fading it in, but I've noticed it's far less distracting without the fade. It also adds a two second timeout to prevent network issues or latency from rendering an "empty" page. First, we'll add a class called reduce-fouce to the <html> element. <html class="reduce-fouce"> ... </html> Then we'll add this rule to the CSS. <style> html.reduce-fouce { opacity: 0; } </style> Finally, we'll wait until all the custom elements have loaded or two seconds have elapsed, whichever comes first, and we'll remove the class causing the content to show immediately. <script type="module"> await Promise.race([ // Load all custom elements Promise.allSettled([ customElements.whenDefined('my-button'), customElements.whenDefined('my-card'), customElements.whenDefined('my-rating') // ... ]), // Resolve after two seconds new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 2000)) ]); // Remove the class, showing the page content document.documentElement.classList.remove('reduce-fouce'); </script> This approach seems to work especially well and won't end up "stranding" the user if network issues occur.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, "'Tis a design system," I muttered, "bringing order to the core— Ah, distinctly I remember, every button, every splendor, Each component, standardized, like a raven's watchful eyes, Unified in system's might, like patterns we restore— And each separate style injection, linked with careful introspection, 'Tis a design system, nothing more.
It’s disappointing that some of the most outspoken individuals against Web Components are framework maintainers. These individuals are, after all, in some of the best positions to provide valuable feedback. They have a lot of great ideas! Alas, there’s little incentive for them because standards evolve independently and don’t necessarily align with framework opinions. How could they? Opinions are one of the things that make frameworks unique. And therein lies the problem. If you’re convinced that your way is the best and only way, it’s natural to feel disenchanted when a decision is made that you don’t fully agree with. This is my open response to Ryan Carniato’s post from yesterday called “Web Components Are Not the Future.” WTF is a component anyway? # The word component is a loaded term, but I like to think of it in relation to interoperability. If I write a component in Framework A, I would like to be able to use it in Framework B, C, and D without having to rewrite it or include its entire framework. I don’t think many will disagree with that objective. We’re not there yet, but the road has been paved and instead of learning to drive on it, frameworks are building…different roads. Ryan states: If the sheer number of JavaScript frameworks is any indicator we are nowhere near reaching a consensus on how one should author components on the web. And even if we were a bit closer today we were nowhere near there a decade ago. The thing is, we don’t need to agree on how to write components, we just need to agree on the underlying implementation, then you can use classes, hooks, or whatever flavor you want to create them. Turns out, we have a very well-known, ubiquitous technology that we’ve chosen to do this with: HTML. But it also can have a negative effect. If too many assumptions are made it becomes harder to explore alternative space because everything gravitates around the establishment. What is more established than a web standard that can never change? If the concern is premature standardization, well, it’s a bit late for that. So let’s figure out how to get from where we are now to where we want to be. The solution isn’t to start over at the specification level, it’s to rethink how front end frameworks engage with current and emerging standards and work to improve them. Respectfully, it’s time to stop complaining, move on, and fix the things folks perceive as suboptimal. The definition of component # That said, we also need to realize that Web Components aren’t a 1:1 replacement for framework components. They’re tangentially related things, and I think a lot of confusion stems from this. We should really fix the definition of component. So the fundamental problem with Web Components is that they are built on Custom Elements. Elements !== Components. More specifically, Elements are a subset of Components. One could argue that every Element could be a Component but not all Components are Elements. To be fair, I’ve never really liked the term “Web Components” because it competes with the concept of framework components, but that’s what caught on and that's what most people are familiar with these days. Alas, there is a very important distinction here. Sure, a button and a text field can be components, but there are other types. For example, many frameworks support a concept of renderless components that exist in your code, but not in the final HTML. You can’t do that with Web Components, because every custom element results in an actual DOM element. (FWIW I don’t think this is a bad thing — but I digress…) As to why Web components don’t do all the things framework components do, that’s because they’re a lower level implementation of an interoperable element. They’re not trying to do everything framework components do. That’s what frameworks are for. It’s ok to be shiny # In fact, this is where frameworks excel. They let you go above and beyond what the platform can do on its own. I fully support this trial-and-error way of doing things. After all, it’s fun to explore new ideas and live on the bleeding edge. We got a lot of cool stuff from doing that. We got document.querySelector() from jQuery. CSS Custom Properties were inspired by Sass. Tagged template literals were inspired by JSX. Soon we’re getting signals from Preact. And from all the component-based frameworks that came before them, we got Web Components: custom HTML elements that can be authored in many different ways (because we know people like choices) and are fully interoperable (if frameworks and metaframeworks would continue to move towards the standard instead of protecting their own). Frameworks are a testbed for new ideas that may or may not work out. We all need to be OK with that. Even framework authors. Especially framework authors. More importantly, we all need to stop being salty when our way isn’t what makes it into the browser. There will always be a better way to do something, but none of us have the foresight to know what a perfect solution looks like right now. Hindsight is 20/20. As humans, we’re constantly striving to make things better. We’re really good at it, by the way. But we must have the discipline to reach various checkpoints to pause, reflect, and gather feedback before continuing. Even the cheapest cars on the road today will outperform the Model T in every way. I’m sure Ford could have made the original Model T way better if they had spent another decade working on it, but do you know made the next version even better than 10 more years? The feedback they got from actual users who bought them, sat in them, and drove them around on actual roads. Web Standards offer a promise of stability and we need to move forward to improve them together. Using one’s influence to rally users against the very platform you’ve built your success on is damaging to both the platform and the community. We need these incredible minds to be less divisive and more collaborative. The right direction # Imagine if we applied the same arguments against HTML early on. What if we never standardized it at all? Would the Web be a better place if every site required a specific browser? (Narrator: it wasn't.) Would it be better if every site was Flash or a Java applet? (Remember Silverlight? lol) Sure, there are often better alternatives for every use case, but we have to pick something that works for the majority, then we can iterate on it. Web Components are a huge step in the direction of standardization and we should all be excited about that. But the Web Component implementation isn’t compatible with existing frameworks, and therein lies an existential problem. Web Components are a threat to the peaceful, proprietary way of life for frameworks that have amassed millions of users — the majority of web developers. Because opinions vary so wildly, when a new standard emerges frameworks can’t often adapt to them without breaking changes. And breaking changes can be detrimental to a user base. Have you spotted the issue? You can’t possibly champion Web Standards when you’ve built a non-standard thing that will break if you align with the emerging standard. It’s easier to oppose the threat than to adapt to it. And of course Web Components don’t do everything a framework does. How can the platform possibly add all the features every framework added last week? That would be absolutely reckless. And no, the platform doesn’t move as fast as your framework and that’s sometimes painful. But it’s by design. This process is what gives us APIs that continue to work for decades. As users, we need to get over this hurdle and start thinking about how frameworks can adapt to current standards and how to evolve them as new ones emerge. Let’s identify shortcomings in the spec and work together to improve the ecosystem instead of arguing about who’s shit smells worse. Reinventing the wheel isn’t the answer. Lock-in isn’t the answer. This is why I believe that next generation of frameworks will converge on custom elements as an interoperable component model, enhance that model by sprinkling in awesome features of their own, and focus more on flavors (class-based, functional, signals, etc.) and higher level functionality. As for today's frameworks? How they adapt will determine how relevant they remain. Living dangerously # Ryan concludes: So in a sense there are nothing wrong with Web Components as they are only able to be what they are. It's the promise that they are something that they aren't which is so dangerous. The way their existence warps everything around them that puts the whole web at risk. It's a price everyone has to pay. So Web Components aren’t the specific vision you had for components. That's fine. But that's how it is. They're not Solid components. They’re not React components. They’re not Svelte components. They’re not Vue components. They’re standards-based Web Components that work in all of the above. And they could work even better in all of the above if all of the above were interested in advancing the platform instead of locking users in. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I find interesting the number of people who are and have been sponsored and/or hired by for-profit companies whose platforms rely heavily on said frameworks. Do you think it’s in their best interest to follow Web Standards if that means making their service less relevant and less lucrative? Of course not. If you’ve built an empire on top of something, there’s absolutely zero incentive to tear it down for the betterment of humanity. That’s not how capitalism works. It’s far more profitable to lock users in and keep them paying. But you know what…? Web Standards don't give a fuck about monetization. Longevity supersedes ingenuity # The last thing I’d like to talk about is this line here. Web Components possibly pose the biggest risk to the future of the web that I can see. Of course, this is from the perspective of a framework author, not from the people actually shipping and maintaining software built using these frameworks. And the people actually shipping software are the majority, but that’s not prestigious so they rarely get the high follower counts. The people actually shipping software are tired of framework churn. They're tired of shit they wrote last month being outdated already. They want stability. They want to know that the stuff they build today will work tomorrow. As history has proven, no framework can promise that. You know what framework I want to use? I want a framework that aligns with the platform, not one that replaces it. I want a framework that values incremental innovation over user lock-in. I want a framework that says it's OK to break things if it means making the Web a better place for everyone. Yes, that comes at a cost, but almost every good investment does, and I would argue that cost will be less expensive than learning a new framework and rebuilding buttons for the umpteenth time. The Web platform may not be perfect, but it continuously gets better. I don’t think frameworks are bad but, as a community, we need to recognize that a fundamental piece of the platform has changed and it's time to embrace the interoperable component model that Web Component APIs have given us…even if that means breaking things to get there. The component war is over.
Components are like little machines. You build them once. Use them whenever you need them. Every now and then you open them up to oil them or replace a part, then you send them back to work. And work, they do. Little component machines just chugging along so you never have to write them from scratch ever again. Adapted from this tweet.
I've been struggling with the idea of reflecting attributes in custom elements and when it's appropriate. I think I've identified a gap in the platform, but I'm not sure exactly how we should fill it. I'll explain with an example. Let's say I want to make a simple badge component with primary, secondary, and tertiary variants. <my-badge variant="primary">foo</my-badge> <my-badge variant="secondary">bar</my-badge> <my-badge variant="tertiary">baz</my-badge> This is a simple component, but one that demonstrates the problem well. I want to style the badge based on the variant property, but sprouting attributes (which occurs as a result of reflecting a property back to an attribute) is largely considered a bad practice. A lot of web component libraries do it out of necessary to facilitate styling — including Shoelace — but is there a better way? The problem # I need to style the badge without relying on reflected attributes. This means I can't use :host([variant="..."]) because the attribute may or may not be set by the user. For example, if the component is rendered in a framework that sets properties instead of attributes, or if the property is set or changed programmatically, the attribute will be out of sync and my styles will be broken. So how can I style the badge based its variants without reflection? Let's assume we have the following internals, which is all we really need for the badge. <my-badge> #shadowRoot <slot></slot> </my-badge> What can we do about it? # I can't add classes to the slot, because :host(:has(.slot-class)) won't match. I can't set a data attribute on the host element, because that's the same as reflection and might cause issues with SSR and DOM morphing libraries. I could add a wrapper element around the slot and apply classes to it, but I'd prefer not to bloat the internals with additional elements. With a wrapper, users would have to use ::part(wrapper) to target it. Without the wrapper, they can set background, border, and other CSS properties directly on the host element which is more desirable. I could add custom states for each variant, but this gets messy for non-Boolean values and feels like an abuse of the API. Filling the gap # I'm not sure what the best solution is or could be, but one thing that comes to mind is a way to provide some kind of cross-root version of :has that works with :host. Something akin to: :host(:has-in-shadow-root(.some-selector)) { /* maybe one day… */ } If you have any thoughts on this one, hit me up on Twitter.
More in programming
I was chatting with a friend recently, and she mentioned an annoyance when reading fanfiction on her iPad. She downloads fic from AO3 as EPUB files, and reads it in the Kindle app – but the files don’t have a cover image, and so the preview thumbnails aren’t very readable: She’s downloaded several hundred stories, and these thumbnails make it difficult to find things in the app’s “collections” view. This felt like a solvable problem. There are tools to add cover images to EPUB files, if you already have the image. The EPUB file embeds some key metadata, like the title and author. What if you had a tool that could extract that metadata, auto-generate an image, and use it as the cover? So I built that. It’s a small site where you upload EPUB files you’ve downloaded from AO3, the site generates a cover image based on the metadata, and it gives you an updated EPUB to download. The new covers show the title and author in large text on a coloured background, so they’re much easier to browse in the Kindle app: If you’d find this helpful, you can use it at alexwlchan.net/my-tools/add-cover-to-ao3-epubs/ Otherwise, I’m going to explain how it works, and what I learnt from building it. There are three steps to this process: Open the existing EPUB to get the title and author Generate an image based on that metadata Modify the EPUB to insert the new cover image Let’s go through them in turn. Open the existing EPUB I’ve not worked with EPUB before, and I don’t know much about it. My first instinct was to look for Python EPUB libraries on PyPI, but there was nothing appealing. The results were either very specific tools (convert EPUB to/from format X) or very unmaintained (the top result was last updated in April 2014). I decied to try writing my own code to manipulate EPUBs, rather than using somebody else’s library. I had a vague memory that EPUB files are zips, so I changed the extension from .epub to .zip and tried unzipping one – and it turns out that yes, it is a zip file, and the internal structure is fairly simple. I found a file called content.opf which contains metadata as XML, including the title and author I’m looking for: <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <package xmlns="http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf" version="2.0" unique-identifier="uuid_id"> <metadata xmlns:opf="http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:calibre="http://calibre.kovidgoyal.net/2009/metadata"> <dc:title>Operation Cameo</dc:title> <meta name="calibre:timestamp" content="2025-01-25T18:01:43.253715+00:00"/> <dc:language>en</dc:language> <dc:creator opf:file-as="alexwlchan" opf:role="aut">alexwlchan</dc:creator> <dc:identifier id="uuid_id" opf:scheme="uuid">13385d97-35a1-4e72-830b-9757916d38a7</dc:identifier> <meta name="calibre:title_sort" content="operation cameo"/> <dc:description><p>Some unusual orders arrive at Operation Mincemeat HQ.</p></dc:description> <dc:publisher>Archive of Our Own</dc:publisher> <dc:subject>Fanworks</dc:subject> <dc:subject>General Audiences</dc:subject> <dc:subject>Operation Mincemeat: A New Musical - SpitLip</dc:subject> <dc:subject>No Archive Warnings Apply</dc:subject> <dc:date>2023-12-14T00:00:00+00:00</dc:date> </metadata> … That dc: prefix was instantly familiar from my time working at Wellcome Collection – this is Dublin Core, a standard set of metadata fields used to describe books and other objects. I’m unsurprised to see it in an EPUB; this is exactly how I’d expect it to be used. I found an article that explains the structure of an EPUB file, which told me that I can find the content.opf file by looking at the root-path element inside the mandatory META-INF/container.xml file which is every EPUB. I wrote some code to find the content.opf file, then a few XPath expressions to extract the key fields, and I had the metadata I needed. Generate a cover image I sketched a simple cover design which shows the title and author. I wrote the first version of the drawing code in Pillow, because that’s what I’m familiar with. It was fine, but the code was quite flimsy – it didn’t wrap properly for long titles, and I couldn’t get custom fonts to work. Later I rewrote the app in JavaScript, so I had access to the HTML canvas element. This is another tool that I haven’t worked with before, so a fun chance to learn something new. The API felt fairly familiar, similar to other APIs I’ve used to build HTML elements. This time I did implement some line wrapping – there’s a measureText() API for canvas, so you can see how much space text will take up before you draw it. I break the text into words, and keeping adding words to a line until measureText tells me the line is going to overflow the page. I have lots of ideas for how I could improve the line wrapping, but it’s good enough for now. I was also able to get fonts working, so I picked Georgia to match the font used for titles on AO3. Here are some examples: I had several ideas for choosing the background colour. I’m trying to help my friend browse her collection of fic, and colour would be a useful way to distinguish things – so how do I use it? I realised I could get the fandom from the EPUB file, so I decided to use that. I use the fandom name as a seed to a random number generator, then I pick a random colour. This means that all the fics in the same fandom will get the same colour – for example, all the Star Wars stories are a shade of red, while Star Trek are a bluey-green. This was a bit harder than I expected, because it turns out that JavaScript doesn’t have a built-in seeded random number generator – I ended up using some snippets from a Stack Overflow answer, where bryc has written several pseudorandom number generators in plain JavaScript. I didn’t realise until later, but I designed something similar to the placeholder book covers in the Apple Books app. I don’t use Apple Books that often so it wasn’t a deliberate choice to mimic this style, but clearly it was somewhere in my subconscious. One difference is that Apple’s app seems to be picking from a small selection of background colours, whereas my code can pick a much nicer variety of colours. Apple’s choices will have been pre-approved by a designer to look good, but I think mine is more fun. Add the cover image to the EPUB My first attempt to add a cover image used pandoc: pandoc input.epub --output output.epub --epub-cover-image cover.jpeg This approach was no good: although it added the cover image, it destroyed the formatting in the rest of the EPUB. This made it easier to find the fic, but harder to read once you’d found it. An EPUB file I downloaded from AO3, before/after it was processed by pandoc. So I tried to do it myself, and it turned out to be quite easy! I unzipped another EPUB which already had a cover image. I found the cover image in OPS/images/cover.jpg, and then I looked for references to it in content.opf. I found two elements that referred to cover images: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <package xmlns="http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf" version="3.0" unique-identifier="PrimaryID"> <metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:opf="http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf"> <meta name="cover" content="cover-image"/> … </metadata> <manifest> <item id="cover-image" href="images/cover.jpg" media-type="image/jpeg" properties="cover-image"/> … </manifest> </package> This gave me the steps for adding a cover image to an EPUB file: add the image file to the zipped bundle, then add these two elements to the content.opf. Where am I going to deploy this? I wrote the initial prototype of this in Python, because that’s the language I’m most familiar with. Python has all the libraries I need: The zipfile module can unpack and modify the EPUB/ZIP The xml.etree or lxml modules can manipulate XML The Pillow library can generate images I built a small Flask web app: you upload the EPUB to my server, my server does some processing, and sends the EPUB back to you. But for such a simple app, do I need a server? I tried rebuilding it as a static web page, doing all the processing in client-side JavaScript. That’s simpler for me to host, and it doesn’t involve a round-trip to my server. That has lots of other benefits – it’s faster, less of a privacy risk, and doesn’t require a persistent connection. I love static websites, so can they do this? Yes! I just had to find a different set of libraries: The JSZip library can unpack and modify the EPUB/ZIP, and is the only third-party code I’m using in the tool Browsers include DOMParser for manipulating XML I’ve already mentioned the HTML <canvas> element for rendering the image This took a bit longer because I’m not as familiar with JavaScript, but I got it working. As a bonus, this makes the tool very portable. Everything is bundled into a single HTML file, so if you download that file, you have the whole tool. If my friend finds this tool useful, she can save the file and keep a local copy of it – she doesn’t have to rely on my website to keep using it. What should it look like? My first design was very “engineer brain” – I just put the basic controls on the page. It was fine, but it wasn’t good. That might be okay, because the only person I need to be able to use this app is my friend – but wouldn’t it be nice if other people were able to use it? If they’re going to do that, they need to know what it is – most people aren’t going to read a 2,500 word blog post to understand a tool they’ve never heard of. (Although if you have read this far, I appreciate you!) I started designing a proper page, including some explanations and descriptions of what the tool is doing. I got something that felt pretty good, including FAQs and acknowledgements, and I added a grey area for the part where you actually upload and download your EPUBs, to draw the user’s eye and make it clear this is the important stuff. But even with that design, something was missing. I realised I was telling you I’d create covers, but not showing you what they’d look like. Aha! I sat down and made up a bunch of amusing titles for fanfic and fanfic authors, so now you see a sample of the covers before you upload your first EPUB: This makes it clearer what the app will do, and was a fun way to wrap up the project. What did I learn from this project? Don’t be scared of new file formats My first instinct was to look for a third-party library that could handle the “complexity” of EPUB files. In hindsight, I’m glad I didn’t find one – it forced me to learn more about how EPUBs work, and I realised I could write my own code using built-in libraries. EPUB files are essentially ZIP files, and I only had basic needs. I was able to write my own code. Because I didn’t rely on a library, now I know more about EPUBs, I have code that’s simpler and easier for me to understand, and I don’t have a dependency that may cause problems later. There are definitely some file formats where I need existing libraries (I’m not going to write my own JPEG parser, for example) – but I should be more open to writing my own code, and not jumping to add a dependency. Static websites can handle complex file manipulations I love static websites and I’ve used them for a lot of tasks, but mostly read-only display of information – not anything more complex or interactive. But modern JavaScript is very capable, and you can do a lot of things with it. Static pages aren’t just for static data. One of the first things I made that got popular was find untagged Tumblr posts, which was built as a static website because that’s all I knew how to build at the time. Somewhere in the intervening years, I forgot just how powerful static sites can be. I want to build more tools this way. Async JavaScript calls require careful handling The JSZip library I’m using has a lot of async functions, and this is my first time using async JavaScript. I got caught out several times, because I forgot to wait for async calls to finish properly. For example, I’m using canvas.toBlob to render the image, which is an async function. I wasn’t waiting for it to finish, and so the zip would be repackaged before the cover image was ready to add, and I got an EPUB with a missing image. Oops. I think I’ll always prefer the simplicity of synchronous code, but I’m sure I’ll get better at async JavaScript with practice. Final thoughts I know my friend will find this helpful, and that feels great. Writing software that’s designed for one person is my favourite software to write. It’s not hyper-scale, it won’t launch the next big startup, and it’s usually not breaking new technical ground – but it is useful. I can see how I’m making somebody’s life better, and isn’t that what computers are for? If other people like it, that’s a nice bonus, but I’m really thinking about that one person. Normally the one person I’m writing software for is me, so it’s extra nice when I can do it for somebody else. If you want to try this tool yourself, go to alexwlchan.net/my-tools/add-cover-to-ao3-epubs/ If you want to read the code, it’s all on GitHub. [If the formatting of this post looks odd in your feed reader, visit the original article]
I’ve been doing Dry January this year. One thing I missed was something for apéro hour, a beverage to mark the start of the evening. Something complex and maybe bitter, not like a drink you’d have with lunch. I found some good options. Ghia sodas are my favorite. Ghia is an NA apéritif based on grape juice but with enough bitterness (gentian) and sourness (yuzu) to be interesting. You can buy a bottle and mix it with soda yourself but I like the little cans with extra flavoring. The Ginger and the Sumac & Chili are both great. Another thing I like are low-sugar fancy soda pops. Not diet drinks, they still have a little sugar, but typically 50 calories a can. De La Calle Tepache is my favorite. Fermented pineapple is delicious and they have some fun flavors. Culture Pop is also good. A friend gave me the Zero book, a drinks cookbook from the fancy restaurant Alinea. This book is a little aspirational but the recipes are doable, it’s just a lot of labor. Very fancy high end drink mixing, really beautiful flavor ideas. The only thing I made was their gin substitute (mostly junipers extracted in glycerin) and it was too sweet for me. Need to find the right use for it, a martini definitely ain’t it. An easier homemade drink is this Nonalcoholic Dirty Lemon Tonic. It’s basically a lemonade heavily flavored with salted preserved lemons, then mixed with tonic. I love the complexity and freshness of this drink and enjoy it on its own merits. Finally, non-alcoholic beer has gotten a lot better in the last few years thanks to manufacturing innovations. I’ve been enjoying NA Black Butte Porter, Stella Artois 0.0, Heineken 0.0. They basically all taste just like their alcoholic uncles, no compromise. One thing to note about non-alcoholic substitutes is they are not cheap. They’ve become a big high end business. Expect to pay the same for an NA drink as one with alcohol even though they aren’t taxed nearly as much.
The first time we had to evacuate Malibu this season was during the Franklin fire in early December. We went to bed with our bags packed, thinking they'd probably get it under control. But by 2am, the roaring blades of fire choppers shaking the house got us up. As we sped down the canyon towards Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), the fire had reached the ridge across from ours, and flames were blazing large out the car windows. It felt like we had left the evacuation a little too late, but they eventually did get Franklin under control before it reached us. Humans have a strange relationship with risk and disasters. We're so prone to wishful thinking and bad pattern matching. I remember people being shocked when the flames jumped the PCH during the Woolsey fire in 2017. IT HAD NEVER DONE THAT! So several friends of ours had to suddenly escape a nightmare scenario, driving through burning streets, in heavy smoke, with literally their lives on the line. Because the past had failed to predict the future. I feel into that same trap for a moment with the dramatic proclamations of wind and fire weather in the days leading up to January 7. Warning after warning of "extremely dangerous, life-threatening wind" coming from the City of Malibu, and that overly-bureaucratic-but-still-ominous "Particularly Dangerous Situation" designation. Because, really, how much worse could it be? Turns out, a lot. It was a little before noon on the 7th when we first saw the big plumes of smoke rise from the Palisades fire. And immediately the pattern matching ran astray. Oh, it's probably just like Franklin. It's not big yet, they'll get it out. They usually do. Well, they didn't. By the late afternoon, we had once more packed our bags, and by then it was also clear that things actually were different this time. Different worse. Different enough that even Santa Monica didn't feel like it was assured to be safe. So we headed far North, to be sure that we wouldn't have to evacuate again. Turned out to be a good move. Because by now, into the evening, few people in the connected world hadn't started to see the catastrophic images emerging from the Palisades and Eaton fires. Well over 10,000 houses would ultimately burn. Entire neighborhoods leveled. Pictures that could be mistaken for World War II. Utter and complete destruction. By the night of the 7th, the fire reached our canyon, and it tore through the chaparral and brush that'd been building since the last big fire that area saw in 1993. Out of some 150 houses in our immediate vicinity, nearly a hundred burned to the ground. Including the first house we moved to in Malibu back in 2009. But thankfully not ours. That's of course a huge relief. This was and is our Malibu Dream House. The site of that gorgeous home office I'm so fond to share views from. Our home. But a house left standing in a disaster zone is still a disaster. The flames reached all the way up to the base of our construction, incinerated much of our landscaping, and devoured the power poles around it to dysfunction. We have burnt-out buildings every which way the eye looks. The national guard is still stationed at road blocks on the access roads. Utility workers are tearing down the entire power grid to rebuild it from scratch. It's going to be a long time before this is comfortably habitable again. So we left. That in itself feels like defeat. There's an urge to stay put, and to help, in whatever helpless ways you can. But with three school-age children who've already missed over a months worth of learning from power outages, fire threats, actual fires, and now mudslide dangers, it was time to go. None of this came as a surprise, mind you. After Woolsey in 2017, Malibu life always felt like living on borrowed time to us. We knew it, even accepted it. Beautiful enough to be worth the risk, we said. But even if it wasn't a surprise, it's still a shock. The sheer devastation, especially in the Palisades, went far beyond our normal range of comprehension. Bounded, as it always is, by past experiences. Thus, we find ourselves back in Copenhagen. A safe haven for calamities of all sorts. We lived here for three years during the pandemic, so it just made sense to use it for refuge once more. The kids' old international school accepted them right back in, and past friendships were quickly rebooted. I don't know how long it's going to be this time. And that's an odd feeling to have, just as America has been turning a corner, and just as the optimism is back in so many areas. Of the twenty years I've spent in America, this feels like the most exciting time to be part of the exceptionalism that the US of A offers. And of course we still are. I'll still be in the US all the time on both business, racing, and family trips. But it won't be exclusively so for a while, and it won't be from our Malibu Dream House. And that burns.
Thou shalt not suffer a flaky test to live, because it’s annoying, counterproductive, and dangerous: one day it might fail for real, and you won’t notice. Here’s what to do.
The ware for January 2025 is shown below. Thanks to brimdavis for contributing this ware! …back in the day when you would get wares that had “blue wires” in them… One thing I wonder about this ware is…where are the ROMs? Perhaps I’ll find out soon! Happy year of the snake!
