Quite literally my first thought. Great, but I can’t issue certs against that.

One of the major reasons I have a domain name is so that I can issue certs that just work against any and all devices. For resources on my network. Home or work, some thing.

To folks recommending a private CA, that’s a quick way to some serious frustration. For some arguably good reasons. On some devices I could easily add a CA to, others are annoying or downright bullshit, and yet others are pretty much impossible. Then that last set that’s the most persnickety, guests, where it’d be downright rude!

Being able to issue public certs is easily is great! I don’t use .local much because if it’s worth naming, it’s worth securing.

I’m going to try to help explain this, but i’ll be honest it feels like you’re coming from a place of frustration. I’m sorry about that, take a break :)

(I’m not a language expert, but here goes)

var test int < bruh what? :=

These are the two forms of variable declaration and the second one is a declaration and initialization short hand. I most commonly use :=. For instance:

foo := 1 // it's an int!
var bar uint16 // variable will be assigned the zero value for unit16 which is unsurprisingly, 0.

func(u User) hi () { … } Where is the return type and why calling this fct doesnt require passing the u parameter but rather u.hi().

This has no return type because it returns no values. It does not require passing u. It’s a method on the User type, specifically u User is a method receiver. You might think of this akin to self or this variable in other languages. By convention it is a singke character of the type’s name.

If that function returned a value it might look like:

func(u User) hi() string {
    return "hi!"
}

map := map[string] int {} < wtf

This is confusing because of how it’s written. But the intent is to have a map (aka dictionary or hashmap) with string keys and int values. In your example it’s initializd to have no entries, the {}. Let me rewrite this a different way:

ages := map[string]int{
    "Alice": 38,
    "Bob": 37,
}

Hope this helps. In all honesty, Go’s language is very simple and actually rather clear. There’s definitely some funny bits, but these aren’t it. Take a break, come back to it later. It’s hard to learn if you are frustrated.

I also recommend doing the Tour of Go here. My engineers who found Go intimidating found it very accessible and helped them get through the learning code (as there is with any language).

Good luck (I’m on mobile and didn’t check my syntax, hopefully my code works 😎)

If you look deeper at the recorded PR commit, comments, and package description it’s clearly straight up mean-spirited.

For sure! I was just thinking of a species that’ll outlive humanity. :D

I thought roach myself.

Yeeap. My FreeBSD box has such pain with 'em. Because unfortunately *bsd is not in Python’s precompiled wheels. So one is almost building from the source.

Now every time I pip install something there’s a high likelihood I’m going to end up having to install the rust tool chain and burn so much time on building libraries. I get why the project made the switch, but man does it hurt being downstream of it.

Every time I see a project decide to use rust I groan knowing my build/packaging time is about to skyrocket. Case in point, the Python cryptography project.

And given cryptography’s importance in the Python ecosystem what used to be an easy pip install of a package now almost always going to include is an enormous and horribly slow rust build environment.

Seeing a rust libraryjust makes me sad now 😭

Metamucil Bulk Fiber

All the generics are awful in taste or consistency (for instance not being as finely ground it seems). And weirdly in Kirkland Signature’s case, foamy.

Stupid expensive for what it is. But the effect is worth it.

Edit: sigh, autocorrect, you are the worst.