It's a good idea, but from the docs it looks like the high level abstractions are wrong.

If my data pipeline is "take this table, filter it, output it", I really don't want to use a "csv file input" or a "excel file output".

I want to say "anything here in the pipeline that I will define that behaves like a table, apply it this transformation", so that I can swap my storage later without touching the pipeline.

Same things for output. Personally I want to say "this goes to a file" at the pipeline level, and the details of the serialization should be changeable instantly.

That being said, can't complain about a free tool, kudos on making it available !

Hey, not sure I get your point here. I believe the abstraction provides what you're describing. You can swap a file input with a table input without touching the rest of the components (provided you don't have major structural changes). Let me know what you meant :)

All of this seems unnecessary, and easily replaced in the provided benchmark by :

i2 = np.ascontiguousarray(pg.surfarray.pixels3d(isurf))

Which does the 100x speedup too and is a "safe" way to adjust memory access to numpy strides.

Whether the output is correct or not is left as an exercise to the author, since the provided benchmark only use np.zeros() it's kind of hard to verify

I just measured this with the np.ascontiguousarray call (inside the loop of course, if you do it outside the loop when i2 is assigned to, then ofc you don't measure the overhead of np.ascontiguousarray) and the runtime is about the same as without this call, which I would expect given everything TFA explains. So you still have the 100x slowdown.

TFA links to a GitHub repo with code resizing non-zero images, which you could use both to easily benchmark your suggested change, and to check whether the output is still correct.

I wonder why are the example videos this specific clip compilation format.

It feels to me that to navigate that, you essentially have to index 500 10-seconds videos, and that looks a lot easier than retrieving information that is in an actual 1 hour long video, because the later one will have a lot more of easy to mix-up moments. So maybe it hides an inability to answer questions about actual long videos (in the paper, the other example videos cap at 3 minutes length for what I can see).

On the other hand, maybe it's just for results presentation purposes, because it is much more readily "verifiable" for everyone than saying "trust us, in this very long video, there's the correct answer unarguably".

So if someone happens to more about that, I'd be very interested

Bricklink has been acquired by Lego 4 years ago, I don't think that's a secret at all !

which was one of the better things that could have happened after Daniel Jezek passed. lego has been a good steward of it since.

The planet has never been, is not and probably won't be in any near future in peril. Humanity is. Humans disappearing is the concern of ecology. The planet will adapt just fine with or without us, and species disappearing will be replaced in time by new ones.

Not having children is not effective at perpetuating the human race, and thus not usually considered as an ecological solution.

That being said, you don't have to have children to be an ecologist either, but you certainly should realise that your efforts are directed towards future humans, not towards the planet which does just fine anyway.

Here's a conclusion that you can also take from the same article :

"In the UK, ages 1-59 year olds are dying at almost eight time the rate if they don't have any baby tooth left and don't absurdly love dinosaurs".

The fact that people have to actually write the whole data analysis down is mind boggling, because it's so trivial to understand the reason.

Still, this is the conclusion : "Thus, the results we see in the actual UK all-cause deaths for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated is not unexpected, and can be fully explained by the Simpson's paradox artifact since the observed ratio of vaccinated:unvaccinated all cause death rates, 1.82x in week 30, is less than the expected background ratio of 2.41x based on their disparate age distributions."

That's not "a lot of hand waving to try and explain it away". They do a very methodical and sensible mathematical analysis of the data at hand, including the initial data point, to explain a very simple thing : people tend to die older overall, and older dying people tend to vaccinate more.

Since a bag ("sac") has no exit hole ("cul"), and so a "cul-de-sac" is a (I guess 2nd degree ?) way of saying "way with no exit".

If you translate (instead of ass) cul as "bottom", it is more like the "bottom of a sack" (i.e. no-exit), if your interpretation was correct, it would be a no-cul-de-sac.

Or "way with one exit, and it's behind you."

Is focusing on github stars specially meaningful ? Is there any functional difference for the repo between having 6k stars (as of today) and 54k ? I don't think so honestly. Github stars are just not something useful to monitor closely. I had a look at my starred repos on github, 95% of those I have no idea what it is anymore anyway.

So yeah, github didn't do any extra effort to restore what's imo essentially a vanity metric. Makes sense to me ?

If think the joke is that author himself don't side with the (mostly pointless) debate about pizza and pineapple, so whatever your own opinion, you can see his point.

The sheer difference in placement and style between the "now now" button and the "allow suggestions" button is all one need to know to be certain it's a bad idea to allow that.

You don't need dark patterns to opt in your users to something good for them.