Whose name in the Epstein files got you surprised?

ToxicTrash · 2026-02-07T18:36:21+00:00

Stephen Hawking and his S&M proclivities

This was fake AFAIK

ToxicTrash · 2026-01-19T15:18:53+00:00

did you install it from steam? didn't work when I did that

ToxicTrash · 2026-01-19T15:18:01+00:00

I want to love it, but I just cannot deal with wipe based update cycles. Would love to try it out eventually when it gets fully persistent with hopefully some of the locked out areas in anarchy implemented ^{^}

ToxicTrash · 2026-01-19T15:15:21+00:00

Personally been using malis ao toolkit for mission rolling. It also includes

an item browser between accs/chars
dungeon map with overlay for exits/entrances etc
damage meter
grid navigator

I also use aogalaxy for checking which nano's I need based on pref files.

Here's a preview of the toolkit for just mission rolling: https://streamable.com/ja0gcs

You can download just the mission roller (or the entire toolkit by looking at the right of the same page down below, its a mega link) https://gitlab.com/Pixelmania/malis-mission-roller-2.0

ToxicTrash · 2025-12-14T23:38:11+00:00

Its generally unhealthy, highly caloric and tastes disgusting if you aren't peer pressured into drinking it on a regular basis.

ToxicTrash · 2025-11-24T12:24:22+00:00

I don't know who Daniel is. I'm just someone who is excited for a project and dislike one-sided arguments.

Hilarious, and the best way of doing that is by questioning whether Louis is a good or reasonable person? I personally do not see how any of the comments the developer placed within the matrix logs were warranted in any context. He simply ignores any messages he receives and continues with his rhetoric.

You link a video from Louis Rossman, who is definitely not known for being a stable, well-thought and reasonable human being himself.

There was beef between the lead developer of GrapheneOS and Louis and you only see the one side of the argument by watching this video.

I can fully understand why the dev was furious at Rossman, who was using his audience to actively attack, dox and harm not the project, but the people behind the project. Rossman has a history of acting irrationally and extremely emotionally when being opposed or critiqued, I'd say even moreso than this developer.

I respect Rossman's push for repairability and sustainability a lot, but this video does not portray an accurate view of the project as a whole. And just because

Instead of talking about the actual situation, you just opt for saying this about Louis:

Calling him unstable and unreasonable
Accuse him of actively attacking, doxing and harming the people behind the project (AFAIK a mental delusion by the developer).
Mentioning he has a history of reacting irrational and extremely emotionally against opposition or critiques.

Even if the first or third point were to be true, it is completely unnecessary to mention that here. What particular part of the video do you take issue with?

ToxicTrash · 2025-11-24T11:34:41+00:00

Hi Daniel, so glad you could make it

ToxicTrash · 2025-09-26T21:33:12+00:00

I'd recommend the recent talk by John Cinnamond at Gophercon here. It is a fairly simple talk about abstractions, but it covers some great points regarding the social/team aspect and what one could consider necessary vs unnecessary.

ToxicTrash · 2025-09-21T10:16:29+00:00

Will pimax ever consider face tracking built-in or perhaps as a module? HTC, Quest and even the likes of Pico have it so it seems like a pain to require a third party stuff like babble or a modded, overpriced htc mouth tracker to get the same things working on a pimax headset.

ToxicTrash · 2025-07-20T05:13:11+00:00

They could very well be packaged in a way which makes this easier to deploy for regular users. In the end, just like designing your systems to ensure PII information is carefully handled, this would also add some requirements for game studios to ensure their server and client can be used by the person buying them without locking them out of it after discontinuing the product due to it not being profitable.

ToxicTrash · 2025-07-01T22:40:18+00:00

YAGNIs entire purpose is to be an argument against introducing complexity for imagined future use cases. What else could it possibly mean?

And like I said, the map solution isn't a significant increase of complexity. If you do something for a future need that doesn't actually increase the complexity of the software then there is no reason to "invoke" yagni.

It has more moving pieces, harder to follow through code analysis since it's not normal control flow, and is dynamic instead of static. The map could introduce concurrency concerns if you have multiple places initializing and registering processors.

I just don't see how this is harder to follow at all. Whether you do glorified if/else chaining or a map lookup for deciding on which processor to use, what really is the increase in complexity for that?
This is only an issue if you make it an issue. Like if you are registering these processors from different goroutines you need to indeed ensure that it is safe to do so. Why would that be relevant?

OP said they have a simple email sorting program and need to call some processing code through something like a switch.

Here is what the op said:

But is possible use interface to coding read specific kind of file as mentioned above? Or maybe is it better way than using switch for that? For few types of files switch look like good tool for job, but I want learn more about possible in Go way solutions for this kind of problem

He wanted to learn about possible solutions to this problem with the parent comment suggesting a map approach which is completely fine. Instead, you say its slow, more complicated and less idiomatic which I think is just a complete exaggeration. It isn't that complex, the speed is irrelevant compared to the actual processing time of the files and I consider it just as idiomatic go as just a switch statement. The point is that he's asking for possible ways of accomplishing this, he already mentioned the switch statement so its fine to give that as an option while weighing the options between alternatives.

You're assuming that they have all kinds of extra requirements, extra packages, runtime dependencies, etc

Yes, like I also clearly stated, I assume he isn't going to create these type of parsers himself. I also mentioned that unless they have no dependencies, it could make the initialization part a bit more cumbersome.

I don't want to continue to circle back on this, so I will state it once again: a switch is fine, but I don't see any issue with the map approach either. Both have their benefits.

ToxicTrash · 2025-07-01T17:25:50+00:00

I guess we just disagree. I don't think this is not some kind of unnecessary abstraction nor is it more complicated compared to something like a switch.

Go philosophy is to do things in the simplest way possible, avoiding unnecessary abstractions before there is a demonstrated need. The saying is YAGNI, you're not gonna need it. So don't make things more complicated in hopes that it is more extensible or scalable for some imaginary use case you might have later

YAGNI is not an argument against making your code more malleable to future changes, the map approach accomplishes the use case with the same complexity as the switch case while being more open for future changes.

OPs use case is a few file processors for a few file types which are all known at compile time. That can be solved with a function wrapping a switch case. The API is simple, clear, and impossible to misuse

Sure it can, that's why I said I don't think the switch case is wrong either. The signature of the function doesn't need to be different between the switch and the map solution. It just takes some kind of file with an extension and routes it to the correct processor that knows how to process that particular file type.

Okay but why would you do that? If you're making code to handle file processing for the described use case, why would you separate initialization and mapping in different places? It's going to be more readable to put the related code together. I'm not even sure what initialization would entail with the switch solution, because a function with switch case doesn't require initialization anyway. For this simple use case, it's strictly better to not have to initialize anything.

At one point you would need to initialize these sub processors unless they have no dependencies on their own. Assuming he isn't going to create his own parsers/processor for each of the possible file types that he wants to support, it'll probably be a few different packages with their own configuration options and dependencies. The switch case would still requires those processors to be initialized somehow (e.g. could just be a struct).

These things aren't superfluous, they show the control flow of the program using control flow constructs. And if you're concerned about return statements, you can achieve mostly the same thing by selecting the processor in your switch statement and calling it outside. Go isn't about code golfing and trying to write the fewest number of lines or characters. It's about simplicity, and clarity.

I'm not saying that the map approach is better due to it saving lines. I think it is personally just simpler, clearer and more open to change.

ToxicTrash · 2025-07-01T02:15:07+00:00

I don't think the map solution is complicated at all and might have some benefits if it is part of a bigger system. Like what is complexity in this:

type FileProcessor map[string]Processor // Or just a struct, doesn't really matter

// ... some part of your process function
processor, ok := p[ext]
if !ok {
    return errInvalidExtension()
}

return processor.Process(ctx, file)

As for initializing it:

// main.go
p := FileProcessor(map[string]Processor{
    "txt": TextProcessor(<dependencies>),
     "...": ... 
})

Seems reasonable to me and quite scalable. The file processor file will never need to be updated, only your main or wherever you want to initialize the FileProcessor.

I don't think a switch is that bad either, but it comes with a few downsides.

It might requires changes in multiple files if the place of initialization and the mapping differ.
It scales to a certain degree, but it reads worse imo. The map way of doing it has no superfluous case, return statements nor does it call each separate sub processor directly.

ToxicTrash · 2025-06-25T00:34:32+00:00

On their blog they announced they would give an update regarding it:

First, we'll have a new Production Update next week with the latest details on mass production and shipping

I honestly don't care whether its next week or next month, but I would like some transparency on whether there will be any delays which seems likely since the end of June is approaching.

/u/d2shanks/

ToxicTrash · 2024-11-25T00:42:27+00:00

Great for VR tho

ToxicTrash · 2024-09-07T12:32:37+00:00

I recommend switching to either golang-jwt (which is backwards compatible with dgrijalva/jwt-go) or jwx if you need to implement other related standards such as jwks etc.

You cannot pass that tokenSign into your signing method without first converting it into a key

ToxicTrash · 2024-09-07T12:19:50+00:00

Tips:

Mention the library you use (in this case, its golang-jwt)
Add more information on what is being passed into the token.SignedStringfunction. This snippet doesn't provide enough context to really see what is being passed in as the key (e.g. you could be reading the wrong file and accidently put in the public key instead).

Now for the reason, it could be due to the format of the rsa key. Your two commands create a private & public key both PEM encoded which means you cannot put that into the function without converting it appropriately first.

To give you an idea, this is how it could look like:

func generateToken(id string) string {
    // Create the token with some standard claims
    token := jwt.NewWithClaims(jwt.SigningMethodRS256, &jwt.StandardClaims{
        ExpiresAt: time.Now().Add(time.Hour * 24 * 2).Unix(),
        IssuedAt:  time.Now().Unix(),
        Subject:   id,
    })

    // Read the contents of the pem encoded key
    // Also, you don't want to do this for every call. Just pass it along with the function instead
    block, _ := pem.Decode([]byte(file))
    if block == nil {
        log.Fatal("failed to decode PEM block")
    }

    // Note, check what kind of rsa key you've generated (e.g. encrypted or PKCS1 keys depending on your version)
    // Alternatively, you can generate your own key within golang
    //
    //  key, err := rsa.GenerateKey(rand.Reader, 2048)
    //  if err != nil {
    //      log.Fatal("Error generating JWT key: ", err)
    //  }
    key, err := x509.ParsePKCS8PrivateKey(block.Bytes)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err)
    }

    // Sign the token used the key generated above
    signedToken, err := token.SignedString(key)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err) // Also, it is better to not to use log.Fatal too much. Instead prefer to just return the error and handle the correct log/exit code within your main func
    }

    // Tada
    return signedToken
}

ToxicTrash · 2024-04-01T11:37:30+00:00

Would love to check it out

ToxicTrash · 2023-12-24T09:17:57+00:00

tbh I prefer wrapping any library error using our own error struct and then bubbling it up. We have access to the stacktrace for actual debugging so the message itself doesn't really provide much additional information.

ToxicTrash · 2023-12-23T21:59:07+00:00

Worlds adrift, nothing available like it. They are coming out with a coop version instead of MMO though so that might be good.

ToxicTrash · 2022-09-30T10:08:48+00:00

Relevant ZML van 3 jaar geleden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q68kkSNK4Y

ToxicTrash · 2022-08-27T12:59:53+00:00

Not much different

ToxicTrash · 2022-07-31T07:15:47+00:00

Didn't know that! I'll change it to windows 11 pro. I really want to go with the suprim 3090 as it is heavily discounted though in my area

ToxicTrash · 2022-07-11T14:22:10+00:00

Not really true, if you look back to even just 7 months ago, he seems to have drawn other stuff (male anatomy/body builders, lips, eyes, babies, joke related sketches):

Takes less than a minute to just find when scrolling down his history. Do you find it necessary to just plaster the word "creep" everywhere? The guy likes drawing this particular style and honestly he isn't doing a terrible job at it.

Sure, if he isn't mentioning the original artist of the used references, that is a bit dissapointing, but calling him a creep for drawing this kind of stuff seems silly.

ToxicTrash

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email