Chameth.com - posts like a-year-of-boardgames, modern-css-is-fun, why-you-should-be-using-https

Monthly Meanderings: March 2026

2026-04-01T00:00:00Z

Since last month’s update I’ve been unpleasantly reminded that I’m middle aged, through the medium of a dodgy knee. There’s nothing quite like not being able to stand up without groaning to underscore that you’re not young any more. The ongoing game of “will this seemingly mundane activity make my knee go funny again?” is a delight to play, too. I’m great at it.

Website updates

Two new blog posts this month: the longest way to represent a date is a short thought experiment on absurd date formats, and modern CSS is fun goes through some neat new CSS features I’ve used recently for this site.

I did some design tweaks this month: headers now have a blue background behind them¹, and a lot of components have been redesigned to have a consistent style. You can see that component in action in the new “now playing” widget I’ve added:

VersaEmerge — Redesign Me Fixed at Zero Scrobbled 1h 5m ago

Instead of each component defining its own styles (which were mostly copied and pasted), there’s now a single class that handles the drop shadow, border, background colour, and the optional title. It also applies a consistent format to elements that are clickable: they use the blue accent colour for their borders, and have a glow effect shown on hover.

The now playing widget is part of a larger bit of work I did on importing some music stats. I’m pulling in the data from my Navidrome instance. A new music page shows my most listened albums and artists. Navidrome doesn’t store a complete play history, just the last play and the count, so I can’t do “what I listened to last month” stats until next month.

Other projects

Other than a minor bug-fix update to contempt, my Dockerfile templating/updating tool, I’ve not done much on my other open source projects. I’ve got a bit more work to do finish migrating all my repositories from GitHub to my private Forgejo instance. I’ve also been thinking about mirroring my public repositories to Codeberg so there’s a non-GitHub way to access them.

Entertainment

I apparently only watched a single film in March:

The Substance

2026-03-18

I really didn’t get on with this. It’s too long for what it is, and over-the-top in a way that just didn’t work for me.

Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were great, but nothing else really was. The cinematography and sound design were too affected, the plot was pretty shallow and obvious, most of the body horror fell into the uncanny CGI valley for me.

It’s not completely without merit: there were around 40 minutes in the middle where I was really into it, but that’s not really enough given it’s closing in on a 2.5 hour runtime.

There’s something to be said for the message it’s presenting about women in Hollywood, too, but it was very heavy handed. Dennis Quaid’s character is even called Harvey; it’s not so much a subtle nod as a sledgehammer to the face.

Instead of films, I’ve been watching a bunch of TV. After devouring The Pitt last month, I struggled to find something to fill the hole it left. I settled on catching up on Chicago Fire and Chicago P.D.. They’re both mostly about getting things done without personal drama becoming the primary focus. They’re not quite as grounded as The Pitt, but at least they’ve not completely gone off the deep end like 9-1-1 where the first responders end up in space somehow?

I’ve also watched the first two episodes of SNL UK. I didn’t have very high expectations, and it gave me a pleasant surprise. Both episodes so far have some hilarious sketches, and are obviously written by British comics with the typical darker, more sardonic humour that separates us from the USA.

Last but not least, board games! I spent a weekend at a tabletop/LAN event with friends, so got to physically play some games for a change. I also kept up with some turn-based games on Board Game Arena, as usual.

6 plays
4 plays
4 plays
4 plays
3 plays
3 plays
3 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
1 play

Around the web

Warranty Void if Regenerated

Some really cool speculative fiction about a future where all software is written by LLMs, and the social effects that may have. Unfortunately the story itself is written with an LLM, and that becomes painfully obvious about a third of the way in. By that point I was already hooked, though.

My 2-step process for AI-free blogging

Speaking of LLM-generated text, this short piece by Manuel Moreale made me laugh. I’m by no means anti-LLM, but I really hate people publishing the output like it’s their own work. It breaks the social assumption that the writer put more effort in than the reader, and makes me wonder how much is hallucinated.

25 Years of Eggs

An interesting applied use of coding agents. I’m a sucker for personal statistics. I have no explicit desire to keep my receipts, or generate graphs of my egg consumption, but seeing the graphs makes me question that. The journey to get there is a great read, too.

I made a one-page notebook

The clever paper folding is interesting, but I really like some of the small touches on the page. There’s a nice little “in reply to” callout providing context at the top of the page, you can click to rotate the image further down, and there’s a details element containing a textual version of it. It has that great ‘small web’ vibe of someone who really cares about what they’re doing.

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

I haven’t read the full paper, but the summary given by the article is equal parts interesting and amusing. They developed a “Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale”, what more is there to say?

It’s meant to resemble painter’s tape, but I’m not sure quite how well it works. ↩︎

Modern CSS is fun

2026-03-17T00:00:00Z

I’ve been doing a bunch of CSS tweaking recently, and keep being surprised by how nice modern CSS is to work with. As someone grey-haired enough to remember writing HTML without CSS, it’s amazing to think how far along web technology has come¹. I wanted to demonstrate some of the handy bits and pieces I’ve used recently.

:has

The :has selector allows you to effectively query for child elements. While a span will match a <span> within an <a>, a:has(span) will match an <a> that contains a <span>. This really shines when combined with more complex selectors, for example:

input {
    border-radius: var(--border-radius);

    &:has(+ .results:not(:empty)) {
        border-bottom-left-radius: 0;
        border-bottom-right-radius: 0;
    }
}

This is part of the styling for my film search box. When the search box is presented initially it has fully rounded corners. But when it is followed by a non-empty results element, it removes the rounding on the bottom corners so that the border continues in a straight line down into the results. You can see it in action below; just enter a few characters (like “the”) to get some results:

You could achieve the same effect by having JavaScript add a class to the <input> element, but I’ll take a CSS solution over a JavaScript solution any day.

Nested rules

You probably spotted this in the example above. It’s what finally made me switch from SCSS to plain CSS. If you have a rule for .foo and a rule for .foo .bar you can just nest them. Not only does it save repeating yourself an awful lot, it keeps everything organised nicely. For example, the CSS for my film list embeds looks like this:

a.film-list {
    display: grid;
    grid-template-areas: "header images" "description images" "meta images";
    grid-template-columns: 1fr auto;
    grid-template-rows: auto 1fr auto;
    row-gap: var(--small-space);

    @media (width <= 800px) {
        grid-template-areas: "header" "description" "images" "meta";
        grid-template-columns: 1fr;
        grid-template-rows: auto auto auto auto;
    }

    & + & {
        margin-top: var(--medium-space);
    }

    h3 {
        font-size: var(--font-size-xxlarge);
    }

    .description {
        /* ... */
    }
}

Everything is wrapped up in a single bundle, including the @media rules for changing the layout on smaller screens, the lovely little & + & rule that adds some extra margin if there are two lists in a row, etc. The & syntax refers to the parent selector, so & + & in this case is the same as a.film-list + a.film-list: it’s very handy! The best part about this is that it’s the exact same syntax as SCSS, so converting is easy². The styled element looks like this:

Watched films ranked

Every film I’ve watched since I started logging, ranked.

Obviously super subjective, and subject to change often and arbitrarily.

264 films

Media range syntax

Once again, you might have spotted this in the previous snippet. I’m not deliberately teasing things, I promise! Back in the day, you did media queries like so:

@media (min-width: 1000px) and (max-width: 2000px) {
    /* some rules that work for screens at least 1000px wide and at most 2000px wide */
}

I always hated this syntax. I always got muddled up as to whether I wanted “min” or “max”, and whether they were inclusive or not. It’s easy to reason through, but it never came naturally. Fortunately you can now just use ranges:

@media (1000px <= width <= 2000px) {
    /* some rules that work for screens at least 1000px wide and at most 2000px wide */
}

I find this style so much easier to write and understand.

Anchor positioning

Trying to dynamically position one element next to another used to exclusively fall within the purview of JavaScript. Fortunately anchor positioning fixes all this. I use this in the film search field I showed above:

.film-search {
    input {
        anchor-name: --film-search-box;
    }
    .results {
        position: absolute;
        position-anchor: --film-search-box;
        position-area: bottom center;
        position-visibility: always;
        width: anchor-size();
    }
}

This does lots of fun things. The .results element is anchored to the input field (via the --film-search-box name), and it’s positioned on the bottom, directly under the anchor. The position-area rule describes a 3x3 grid, with the anchor at the center, so top left would put it diagonally adjacent to the anchor. Next, position-visibility keeps the .results element visible when the anchor isn’t; otherwise when you scroll the anchor off the screen the results would immediately vanish. Finally, the special anchor-size() function makes the .results element take up the same exact width as the anchor.

All-in-all, this puts the results exactly where I want them, without having to deal with any JavaScript at all. I can see how it’d also be amazingly useful trying to do tooltips or other forms of ‘floating’ content too. You can even leave the positioning up to the browser, giving it hints about which order to try, or what property to optimise for (e.g. you can say “anchor to the left or right, whichever has more horizontal space”).

attr() function

This one blew my mind a little. In some of the elements on the site, I’ve added a little label to the top. It looks something like this:

It’s meant to just be a visual flourish, not a semantic title or anything, so I initially just added a ::before selector to each element, customising the content to have the right value. I didn’t like the duplication, though. Now, instead, I do this:

&::before {
    content: attr(data-title);
}

Each component defines its title in a data attribute: <div class="raised-box" data-title="an example">, and the attr function plucks it out and puts it in the content rule. It’s worth noting that this is only widely supported for the content rule, you can’t yet use it for colours or dimensions or other things. It still feels a bit magical, though. Like you’re making a reusable, customisable component with just HTML and CSS.

layers

I’d come across layers a few times, but I never found a need for them. It seemed like something you’d only really need with complicated design systems, or something. Then I had a problem and layers were the perfect solution!

The headings on this site have a whole bunch of CSS attached to them. Currently they look a bit like blue painter’s tape with handwriting on them. This style is applied to all headers, and then the various places that don’t want it had to manually reset everything. I got fed up with that, so decided to add a plain-header class which would “disable” the extra styling:

h2,
h3,
h4,
h5,
h6 {
    /* common styles for all headers, regardless */
    font-family: "Chris Hand", sans-serif;
    font-size: var(--font-size-xxlarge);
    color: var(--text-highlight-colour);
    margin: var(--medium-space) 0;
    line-height: 1;

    &:not(.plain-header) {
        /* do fancy stuff if it _doesn't_ have the .plain-header class */
        transform: rotate(-0.15deg);
        padding: var(--smedium-space);
        font-weight: 800;
        filter: drop-shadow(3px 3px 5px rgb(0, 0, 0));

        a {
            background: none;
            text-decoration-skip-ink: auto;
        }
    }
}

This might seem a bit backwards but I want the default to be styled, as those are far more common. I added this change, sprinkled around some “plain-header” classes, tidied up a lot of duplicate CSS, and things mostly worked. Mostly. Some things stopped working. In a few places the headers had slight tweaks, and they stopped working entirely.

It turns out in moving the rules from a plain h2 selector to a h2:not(.plain-header), I’d made them more specific. Previously a selector like h2.special would have been more specific, so its properties would override those from the less specific h2 selector. My first reaction was to try and hack around it. Changing all the overrides to body h2.special would make them more specific again, but I didn’t want to have to remember to do that forever more.

Instead, I defined some custom layers, and put the header definitions in one:

@layer reset, links, headings

@layer headings {
    h2,
    h3 {
        /* etc */
    }
}

The first @layer rule defines some layers that will be handled in a specific order: first the “reset” layer, then the “links” layer, then the “headings” layer, and then anything not in a layer after that. Rules in one layer don’t have to worry about beating the specificity of rules in another layer, because they’re handled separately.

Note that I couldn’t just put the headings in a layer and call it a day: their rules have to come after the CSS reset, and after the normal link styles, as headers have a bit of extra styling for nested links. If the CSS reset weren’t in a layer, then the * { margin: 0; padding: 0; } type reset would apply over the rules from the headings layer.

Using layers is definitely a bit fiddly, and is not necessary for a lot of sites, but it’s a much cleaner alternative to ugly specificity hacking.

Things I’m looking forward to

There are a few things that aren’t (widely) available yet, that particularly interest me:

sibling-index() and sibling-count()

These new functions are available in WebKit and Blink based browsers, but not Firefox. They give you the index of the element within its siblings, or the count of siblings. For the film list component above, I currently have this abomination for the overlapping posters:

&:nth-child(1) {
    z-index: 5;
    left: 0;
}
&:nth-child(2) {
    z-index: 4;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 1);
}
&:nth-child(3) {
    z-index: 3;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 2);
}
&:nth-child(4) {
    z-index: 2;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 3);
}
&:nth-child(5) {
    z-index: 1;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 4);
}

These could be replaced with something like:

z-index: calc(1 + sibling-count() - sibling-index());
left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * (sibling-index() - 1));

As an added bonus, it would scale to any number of posters. index being 1-based not 0-based is a bit unfortunate as it makes using it in calculations awkward (see 1 offset in both of those rules!), but it’s leagues better than writing 5 separate rules.

random()

Currently only available in Safari. There are a few places where I’d like to have slight random variations of the style. Things like elements that are rotated slightly for aesthetics; they look a bit silly if they’re all identically positioned. I also randomise the icons and positions of my rating stars to break up the visual monotony. Here are a few examples:

Currently I do the stars by hardcoding a bunch of classes and having the backend randomly apply one when it generates the markup for stars. Being able to do it in CSS would be great, though.

Mixins

This one’s so far off it’s not even listed on caniuse.com yet. Mixins are another handy feature of SCSS, that allow you to define reusable blocks of rules, then import them when needed:

@mixin fancy-background {
    background: /*...*/;
}

.some-element {
    @include fancy-background;
}

#other-element {
    @include fancy-background;
}

This would be particularly useful if you can’t easily control the markup to add classes to everything. For example, my footnotes are rendered by a markdown plugin, and don’t easily have a way to add extra classes to them. To style it the same as another element, I currently duplicate a bunch of rules between them both. Mixins would allow me to define those rules once, and then import them in both places.

Aside from JavaScript, which seems to just endlessly reinvent new frameworks and ways to make the most sprawling dependency tree possible. ↩︎
It also means that if your website’s syntax highlighting library doesn’t seem to understand nested rules, you can just pretend your perfectly valid CSS is actually SCSS and it’ll magically work. Grumble, grumble. ↩︎

If all you have is a hammer…

2025-06-18T00:00:00Z

This, dear reader, is a hammer. It is almost entirely irrelevant to the article. Enjoy.

I presume everyone is familiar with the idiom “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. If not, well, there it is. It’s generally used pejoratively about being single-minded, but I think it also gives a glimpse into something more interesting: mental and perceptual sets.

Before I explain, let me tell you a story about a person who bought a 3D printer¹. When they were first thinking about getting one, they weren’t sure if it was worth it. They could print a few board game accessories, but then what? After they got it, though, a whole new world opened up: everywhere they looked there were opportunities to improve things by adding 3D printed plastic. Broken appliances were repaired with 3D printed parts, all sorts of shelves, organisers, hooks and other things were made. But when they talked about this to other people, most often the response was “That’s nice, but I don’t think I’d use one”. How could they not see the truth in all its glorious layer lines?!

The answer is in the concept of a ‘set’², and instead of trying to explain it, I’m just going to quote Wikipedia:

In psychology, a set is a group of expectations that shape experience by making people especially sensitive to specific kinds of information. A perceptual set, also called perceptual expectancy, is a predisposition to perceive things in a certain way. […] A mental set is a framework for thinking about a problem. It can be shaped by habit or by desire. Mental sets can make it easy to solve a class of problem, but attachment to the wrong mental set can inhibit problem-solving and creativity.

This perfectly captures what happened. They’d developed a ‘3D printing mental set’: a predisposition to see problems that can be solved with their ~~hammer~~ 3D printer. Once I started noticing this pattern, I started seeing it all over the place.

Sets at work

Aside from the “could this be improved with some 3D printed plastic” perceptual set, I’ve noticed a couple of other sets: DIY, and writing puzzles.

DIY is probably the most obvious one. Once you become a little familiar with the basics of what you can fix and how, it seems like you start noticing the opportunities more. Before, you might have ignored that loose door handle, but now you notice it and realise with a screwdriver and a sex bolt³ you can fix it and stop it coming loose again anytime soon.

As you do more things, you build up your set of mental sets as well. You learn how to attach things to different types of walls, how to safely work with electricity, and so on, and suddenly installing a new outside light goes from a seemingly complex job to just exercising some of those concepts you’re already familiar with.

This works across ‘disciplines’ as well: I wanted to automatically cool a room down, using a fan in the window to blow in cool air. The 3D printing mental set gave me a way to make it physically go where I wanted it to, the home automation set gave me a plan for how to automate it, and the electricity set helped me figure out how to wire in the relay. It sounds a bit stilted when I spell it out like that, but the catch is I didn’t have to sit down and work any of this out. I was already primed to think in a certain way. I had a whole selection of hammers, and could pick the right combination of them to beat this particular nail⁴.

Puzzles are a bit different. I enjoy taking part in puzzle hunts⁵, and at first I was bewildered at how the authors came up with all the puzzles. After I started thinking about writing some myself, though, I began to notice all kinds of things that could maybe be turned into a puzzle: a specialised database, or a song with repetitive lyrics, or set of things with unique ID numbers. Writing the actual puzzles is still tricky, but once you’ve equipped the “look out for puzzle material” perceptual set it’s much easier to gather a range of ideas.

For example, one puzzle I wrote came about because I stumbled upon Sir Patrick Stewart’s Cowboy Classic Sampler⁶. I think everyone will agree that it’s a fairly unique collection. I tied some samples of the songs together with some screen captures of Sir Patrick as Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and puzzlers had to find the season and episode numbers of the pictures, then use those numbers to select a track and a word from that track in the audio mix. Those words spell out a question, and the answer to that question is the answer to the puzzle.

There were other hints mixed in to point you in the right direction, it wasn’t quite as opaque as it might sound! But the point is without being in that “puzzle finding” mindset when I came across the album, there’s no way I could have come up with that puzzle. Like with the fan, I was primed to think a certain way, and managed to create something I otherwise would have struggled with.

The curse of noticing things

Figuring out how to make stuff isn’t the only place sets appear, though. Perceptual sets are about how we perceive things. When you read something with lots of bullet points, em-dashes, and the word “delve” do you automatically think it’s LLM generated?⁷ Then you have an LLM text perceptual set! It’s kind of annoying, as it’s difficult to “turn off” and stop noticing these things once you’ve seen them. Similarly, I think I have a “bad grammar” set. I know it doesn’t bother a lot of people, but if I’m reading a book and there’s a rogue apostrophe it will throw me right out of the moment. It’s like tripping up when walking and being torn out of a daydream. There’s some use to these — being able to notice grammar errors easily helps with my writing — but for the most part they’re a negative input: they point out things are broken or bad.

The “edge case set” takes this to another level. After about 20 years of writing software⁸ I have a finely honed ability to spot problems. Give me something to implement and my brain will immediately rattle off all the different edge cases and under-specified parts. Then some other bit of my brain gets the job of deciding which we actually care about, which are worth raising, and so on. It’s definitely useful to spot them up-front, rather than when you’re deep in the weeds implementing something, and tends to make everything go a lot smoother if you can hammer the major ones out when planning work. It doesn’t turn off after work though; it comes up when reading board game rule books, or descriptions of the magic system in fantasy novels, or news reports, and so on. It’s a lot less useful then.

Speaking of news reports, here’s a fun one: Gell-Mann amnesia is a cognitive bias where even when you critically assess media reports about something you’re knowledgeable about (say, technology), you continue to trust similar reporting in other areas (say, medicine). But once you know about Gell-Mann amnesia, you might start to actively notice when it happens. You scoff at the article about how the Internet is a “series of tubes” and then start reading the next one about a cancer treatment, but — wait a minute — your Gell-Mann amnesia set kicks in. I’m not sure what you then do with this information. Dismiss basically all the media and news as useless? It’s honestly pretty annoying.

The meta set

I’ve had this blog post on my ideas list since I first noticed the “3D printing mindset”. I didn’t know sets were an actual thing, and I didn’t have most of the examples I do now. As time went on with this idea rattling around in the back of my head, I started noticing the patterns come up more and more. There’s lots of more examples I didn’t include because I didn’t want to just write a listicle of mental patterns. But the fact that I noticed them all seems to mean that I’ve developed a set set, or a meta-set, if you will. It’s fascinating to think about how all this happens inside our mushy bag of neurons, but also a bit terrifying. If thought processes are that malleable, what stops you accidentally breaking them? Actually, thinking about things like Q-Anon, flat earthers, and a lot of contemporary “politics”, maybe that’s quite easy to do?

Image credits

Photo	Creator	Licence	Source
Hammer	Ian Talmacs	Unsplash License	Unsplash

Surprise! I am that person. Bet you didn’t see that coming! ↩︎
I feel like they should have consulted the mathematicians and/or computer scientists before they picked a name. ↩︎
Yes, that’s a real thing. No, I won’t ever use any of the alternative names for it. ↩︎
OK, I’ve strained the metaphor enough. I’m sorry. I’ll stop. ↩︎
If you’re not familiar, a puzzle hunt is a competition where you try to solve puzzles faster than other teams. The sort of puzzles involved are perfectly described by this quote from Mike Develin: “Imagine a word search. Now imagine you aren’t told what words to look for. Now imagine you aren’t told it’s a word search. Now imagine it isn’t a word search.” ↩︎
Go and give it a listen. I’ll wait. ↩︎
I hereby certify all my em-dashes are hand-crafted. Relatedly, Claude Code keeps writing comments that use hyphens when they should actually be em-dashes. Maybe they’ve trained it to avoid them? ↩︎
I just made myself sad by working this out. I still feel young at heart! … Or maybe that’s cholesterol? ↩︎

A year of boardgames

2024-07-26T00:00:00Z

I realised the other day that it’s a little over a year since I started building out a collection of board games¹, and thought it’d be fun to go through the collection and what I think about the games in hindsight.

The beginning

Ticket to Ride: Europe

I don’t remember how I discovered the concept of “modern” boardgames, but just over a year ago I purchased Ticket to Ride: Europe as my first. Prior to that I thought board games were like Scrabble, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, etc: they might provide a distraction occasionally, but didn’t amount to actual fun in the same way a video game might. I’d characterise those “classic” games as generally being extremely dependent on luck, not presenting many interesting choices, and generally being punishing if you’re behind.²

Ticket to Ride came as a breath of fresh air. You get to decide where to route your lines, whether you want to take on more cards, how aggressive to be in blocking the other players, and more. There’s still some luck involved, but it’s managed by being able to draw from a pool of visible cards, or being able to select which route cards you keep.

Shortly after I also picked up Carcassonne, and was similarly enamoured. I’ve not played either of them recently, though: they both fall into a weird little gap for me. While I enjoy the games, I don’t like playing them with certain groups³, but I don’t love them enough to prioritise them over other games when playing with other groups.

Pandemic

The next “gateway” game I picked up was Pandemic, which was my first co-operative game. I loved everything about it, and still do. The feeling when you managed to claw back a victory after setback after setback is great, but so is the shock when everything goes even worse than you thought possible!

Pandemic was also the first game where one of the mechanics caught my attention. The way epidemics work is that you take the bottom card from the infection deck, which becomes the center of the new outbreak, then shuffle that and all the discards back onto the top of the deck. It sounds simple, but it has big implications: everywhere that was previously infected can now be re-infected, and you’re guaranteed some tense rounds while you work back through those cards. It still blows my mind a little how shuffling and re-adding some card can mix up the game so much.

I still play Pandemic when I can, and it generally has a spot in my board game bag when I’m going away. I’ve since picked up the On the Brink expansion which adds some fun new twists⁴ to the base game, and Pandemic: Hotzone – Europe which plays similarly but is a bit quicker and smaller. I’ve also recently ordered Iberia, but it hasn’t materialised yet.

More gateway games

The Quacks of Quedlinburg

Over the next few months I picked up The Quacks of Quedlinburg, Azul (the mini variant), and Splendor. Quacks is probably my least favourite out of all the games so far: it’s not terrible, but it straddles deck-building and push-your-luck in a way that I don’t find particularly satisfying. It’s fun to play the combos you’ve invested in, and it’s fun to try and push your luck, but it’s not really fun when failing at the luck element means you don’t get to use the stuff you were building.

Quacks does bear the distinction of being the first game I customised, though: it got a little plastic organiser to hold all the ingredients instead of having to sort through a massive plastic bag with them all mixed in. My appreciation for game boxes with good built-in storage has gradually increased over the year, as have the tools I have for fixing those that don’t. But we’ll get back to that…

Azul is fun when you’re in the right mood; I’m not terribly into abstract strategy games, but Azul is light enough that it’s enjoyable. Splendor, on the other hand, I really like. So much so that I wrote a digital re-implementation of it. Both Azul and Splendor allow you to mess with your opponent a little, but not too much, which keeps it interesting but also means it still plays well in groups that don’t like too much head-on confrontation.⁵

I think the thing that really caught my attention in Splendor, though, is the quasi-engine building you do. It’s not actually classed as an engine builder on BoardGameGeek, but as you collect cards you get discounts on other cards, which lets you get better cards and further discounts, and so on. I love that kind of positive feedback loop in video games, and I apparently love it in board games as well.

Terraforming Mars

A recent game of Terraforming Mars

I’d heard lots of good things about Terraforming Mars, but I was worried it sounded a bit too complicated so put off buying it for a while. I mean, its weight on BoardGameGeek is orange. That’s scary, right?! Well… no. Terraforming Mars is easily my favourite board game, and I’ve played it pretty consistently since buying it. It has such a huge stock of cards that no two games feel the same: one game you might have an arsenal of cards that generate and use microbes; another you might have a plethora of science tags that let you play some of the most powerful project cards; next you might be spamming forests on Mars, or drowning in credits because you have too much income. It has the engine building element that I love, but I also really enjoy that it’s not always obvious who’s doing well and who’s not until the final score is tallied; that keeps everyone engaged and working on things for the entire game.

I’ve added in the Prelude expansion, which I wouldn’t play the game without now, and the Venus Next expansion, which adds some interesting bits but is nowhere close to being a hard requirement. I’ll probably pick up Colonies next. Prelude adds a new type of card that you take at the start of the game, which gives you a fairly hefty boost; these help you get off to a faster start, and may also affect what strategies you try to run with for the rest of the game. Venus Next adds another resource track, but you don’t have to complete it to end the game; it also adds a bunch of project cards that have “floater” resources, but they don’t feel that much different to the base game microbes⁶. One interesting thing that Venus Next adds, though, is a “solar phase” where one of the global parameters is increased at the end of each generation. The active player decides which parameter, but gets none of the benefits for it, so you get to decide entirely tactically.

There are two drawbacks to Terraforming Mars: it’s a little lengthy, and some of the components are a bit rubbish. Timing-wise, I find it takes a good hour and a half for a two player game, while adding a third player can almost double that. Obviously it depends who you’re playing with and what’s happening in the game, but that’s enough of a commitment that you more-or-less have to plan when to play instead of just spontaneously bringing it to the table. Component-wise, the game comes with basically no storage for anything other than little plastic bags that slosh around in the box; horrible plastic cubes for resource tracking that somehow jump out of your hand constantly, and flimsy printed sheets for putting those cubes on.

My custom player boards

The reason I got a 3D printer was in part so that I could make my own upgraded player boards that actually held the pieces in place instead of letting them fly everywhere if the table was slightly knocked. You can buy third party ones but I figured it was a teach-a-man-to-fish kind of situation, and dropping £200 on a 3D printer would save me money in the long run vs buying £50 of player boards someone else had made.⁷ About seven versions later, I have some boards which I think look and feel great. It’s 3D printed in two halves, then has a laminated 2D print sandwiched in the middle for all the markings and artwork.

As well as the player mats, I 3D printed some boxes, card holders, and so on, but have since replaced them with an insert from Folded Space. These are made of foam, and are perfectly sized to the game box and all the components in it. I could have eventually got to that point with 3D prints, but it would have taken a lot of time to design and print everything. Terraforming Mars was also the game that I first sleeved, as trying to shuffle the huge decks was an exercise in frustration. With all of the cards sleeved, not only are they more protected against wear and tear, you can now shuffle the deck just by gently mashing stacks of cards together. It makes shuffling so easy I now sleeve basically all my games as I hate having to riffle shuffle unsleeved cards.

Marrakech and HeroQuest

Later in the year I bought Marrakech after playing a giant version of it at a games expo. It sits somewhere between Azul and Splendor for me: it’s fun, and good when you want a short game, but it’s not high enough on my list to want to take it away with me. Playing with felt rugs does make a nice change from flipping cards or dealing with plastic components, though.

I also picked up HeroQuest at one point when it was on offer. It’s a good concept, and I felt like I would like it, but it was a bit of a let-down. The biggest problem for me is that you either need one player to basically be the DM, and manage the board, or you use an app to do that and have to deal with a bunch of admin and duplicating things because you’re half playing on the board and half in the app. I also don’t like relying on an app because I’ve been around long enough to know how easily computer software can become defunct, get removed from stores, get “updated” to remove features you need, and so on. I feel like the game would work well with five people: one to DM, and four to control the four heroes. But if you’ve got five people who want to play a dungeon crawler why aren’t you just playing D&D or a similar TTRPG? I’ll probably sell this at some point.

Party games

Codenames

These are all smaller games, and with most of them I’d played them before and decided I wanted my own copy. Codenames is my favourite party game, and I also picked up Codenames: Duet and they now live in the same box with a nice 3D printed insert. Codenames seems to just naturally produce fun moments: when an obscure clue is understood completely it feels amazing, but when it’s totally misunderstood it’s also generally hilarious. There’s also a great tension as the spymaster when you give a clue, then immediately realise it can be misinterpreted in a way that points straight at the assassin.

Poetry for Neanderthals is fun in the same party-word-game sort of way, but basically has no replayability. There are few enough cards that if you play a few times you can remember the “harder” word and just immediately guess it once you get the “easier” one being hinted (you can also sometimes just do this outright, which feels great but it kind of sucks from a gameplay point of view). The best bits are the inflatable “no stick” you get to bop people with, and how everyone speaks like a neanderthal for a little bit out of habit even after the game has ended. I seem to be weirdly good at this game, and I’m not sure what that says about me.

Love Letter has to take the spot of best game per cubic centimeter. It’s basically just a small set of cards, but it enables some really fun emergent gameplay. I really love how small the game is, and how easy it is to set up and play. It’s the perfect time filler. I’ve also played Lovecraft Letter, which adds a lot more complexity and was great fun, but is sadly out of print and I haven’t been able to find a copy at a sensible price.

Fluxx

Star Trek mega-Fluxx

My arbitrary 12 month period ends not long after I went to a tabletop event and played, amongst other things, Cthulu Fluxx, Doctor Who Fluxx, and Star Trek: The Next Generation Fluxx. Each game has the same core Fluxx elements, but adds slight twists along with the unique themes. I ordered a copy of Star Fluxx, but then found out that you can combine the four Star Trek variants (TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY) together with some expansions to make a mega game so ordered all of those as well. While putting together my mega-Fluxx order I noticed they had a Firefly Fluxx that was out of print so I snapped up one of the last copies of that, too.

I ordered most of the games direct from Looney Labs, as the out of print ones weren’t readily available anywhere else. Unfortunately, UK Border Force managed to misread the import label⁸ and demanded £300 of VAT and import duties on them! They refunded it eventually, but this small set of tiny games were for a little while the most expensive things in my collection.

Fluxx is fun enough, but the mega-deck version is brilliant. It gets much more chaotic, with multiple captains, teleporters, and other doodads in play to steal cards back and forth. I was worried it wouldn’t play well with non-Trekkies, but the cards from each series use a different font and the weird people that can’t identify Star Trek series based on uniform variations seem happy enough relying on that.

Future

A few more months have passed since then, and my collection is still growing. Board game stores have summer sales, it turns out! If my physical wallet was in any way involved in the purchasing flow I’m sure it’d be crying.

I’ve recently started logging my plays with BG Stats (which synchronises the information up to Board Game Geek). I’m interested to see if the hard numbers actually align with my conceptions of how often I play certain games. If I do another roundup in a year’s time, expect it to have a lot more stats in…

Other words that may be appropriate here: “hoarding”; “compulsively obtaining”; “spending all my money on”, etc ↩︎
Think about a game of Monopoly: what do you actually get to decide? It basically comes down to “buy or not” if you land on an available property, then later on “buy more houses or not”. ↩︎
e.g. a family member doesn’t like the farmer mechanic in Carcassonne, and I don’t find the game interesting enough without them. Nothing wrong with the game or the people, we’re just not going to both enjoy it the way we like when playing together. ↩︎
Which is definitely why I bought it. Not because it comes with amazing little petri dishes to keep the disease cubes in. Certainly not. ↩︎
There’s a different edge to taking a card that someone else wanted in Splendor — there’s twelve others they can pick from, or they can take a face down one, etc; it might be an inconvenience but you haven’t totally upended their plans — versus blocking a really long train line they were trying to build in Ticket to Ride. ↩︎
Floaters are meant to be big pieces of infrastructure that float in the atmosphere of Venus. The fact that they feel exactly the same way as tiny little microbes when played seems wrong. ↩︎
Having since bought a more expensive printer, I think I’m past the point of convincing myself it’s “cheaper”. It’s a lot more fun, though, and if you design parts yourself you end up with exactly what you want! ↩︎
Turns out the “weight (lbs)” column is not the “quantity” column. Who knew? ↩︎

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.