►
From YouTube: SimPEG Meeting November 17th
Description
SimPEG weekly meeting from November 17th, 2021
A
A
A
A
However,
I
need
to,
I
think,
like
at
least
with
what
I've
been
playing
around
with.
It's
still
seems
pretty
robust
to
stuff.
It's
just
that
we
need
to
it.
We
will
need
to
iterate
on
directives
more
to
automate
the
process
of
doing
the
cross-gradient
conversion,
but
there's
I
haven't
still
haven't
heard
anything
back
from
so
long,
I'm
going
to
ping
him
about.
A
If
he's
had
a
chance
to
go
to
look
at
some
of
the
revisions
that
I
put
on
there
and
have
him
test
it
out
on
some
of
his
stuff
still,
but
it
it's
doing
its
job,
it's
putting
linear
relationships
in
between
between
parameters
like
you
brought
in
cross
plot
space.
It
looks
like
nice
linear
features
of
the
scatter
plots,
which
is
what
it's
supposed
to
end
up
with
the
results,
and
then
the
the
models
are
spatially
correlated.
So
it's
doing
what
it's
supposed
to
be
doing.
D
A
A
Cool
into
a
good
solution
and
the
way
that
the
individual,
like
regularization
parameters,
are
handled.
It's
not
very.
It's
not
super
robust,
like
it
works
well
enough,
but
it's
kind
of
you
need
to
have
more
knobs
to
turn
than
it
is
supported
right
now,
because
you're
also,
it
seems
like
you'll
need
to
have
like
waiting
parameters
on
you'll
have
to
control
waiting
parameters
on
the
data
misfit
terms
themselves,
like
you
actually
want
to
turn
down
a
data
misfit
in
an
objective
function
like
you
actually
have
to
have
a
parameter
on
that.
A
A
A
A
E
E
They
want
to
set
up
a
simple
tcp
iep
connection,
and
do
it
all
like
really
kind
of
reinvent
the
wheel
I
find,
but
so
I'm
working
on
that
and
yeah
almost
got
that
done,
and
I've
done
it
also
for
not
forming
j.
I've
got
so
the
workers
hold
the
fields
and
then
you
can
request
jvec
and
jt
vec
from
the
workers
as
well.
E
They
think
that
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
overhead,
that's
costing
us
it's
going
to
cost
us
a
lot
and
like
in
in
performance,
but
I
I
don't
know
it
seems
like
I've
now,
like
they've,
had
to
have
optimized
like
the
off
like
the
connections
and
the
talking
where
now,
I'm
just
building
that
up
and
it's
yeah,
I
don't
know
much
it's
something
that
they
just
didn't.
They
just
want
something
simple.
I
guess,
but
it's
actually
not
as
simple
it's
a
lot
of
code,
but
anyways
yeah
I
are
they.
E
F
E
E
Almost
there
getting
it
working
but
yeah
the
mpi
solutions
you
we
have,
you
have
to
have
it
so
that
the
data
loads,
you
can't
pass
everything
over
mpi
mpi
has
a
limit
and
it's
pretty
low
for
what
it'll
communicate
and
pass
over
the
sockets
yeah.
It
complained
to
me
a
lot,
so
that's
why
I
didn't
really
pursue
that
one
much
further,
but
I
could
implement
it
now
with
the
lower
level,
one
where
we're
not
like.
I'm
just
talking
to
a
database,
and
I
pull
the
data.
E
A
A
So,
in
my
when
I,
when
I'm
usually
programming
when
I
like
to
design
things,
my
general
philosophy
is
like
I'd
like
to
when
I
create
a
class
I'd
like
for
it
to
be
valid
when
it's
created,
like
that.
That
is
something
that
makes
sense
to
me
like.
I
want
to
be
able
to
create
an
object
and
use
anything
that
I
can
do.
A
I
can
certainly
change
options
later,
but
I
want
to
be
able
to
at
least
use
it
right
away
if
I
wanted
to
so,
if
you
think
about
it,
when
I'm
when
I'm
when
I'm
programming,
when
I'm
writing
things,
I
don't
like
to
create
an
object
and
then
also
add
on
like
the
locations
later
or
add
on
the
solver
later
like
it
doesn't.
That
part
doesn't
necessarily
make
sense
to
me
because
it's
like,
then,
you
can't
use
the
object
that
you
just
created
without
knowing
that
you
had
to
put
other
stuff
into
it.
A
It
can
lead
to
sort
of
opaque
stuff.
So
when
we're
moving
to
properties,
that
will
likely
be
the
case
for
most
of
the
stuff
that
we've
created.
That's
cert,
that's
the
case
now
for
essentially
everything
except
a
tree
mesh,
but
that's
a
special
case
right.
If
the
tree
mesh
and
discretize
like
unless
you
start
refining
it,
it's
not
going
to
be
a
valid
thing.
A
So
it
will
take
a
little
bit
of
change
in
some
code
by
some
people
how
they're
using
it
now,
because
some
of
our
we've
gotten
away
from
it
most
of
the
time
most
of
things
are
passed
as
keyword
arguments
into
the
functions
or
into
the
classes.
Now
as
we're
looking
at
it,
and
most
of
our
examples
are
written
that
way,
but
there's
still
an
odd
way
that
you
could
use
the
code.
A
A
In
my
opinion,
I
feel,
like
that's
a
little
bit
less
clear
from
looking
at
the
initial
like
the
using
inspections.
Things
like
that
on
the
functions
to
see
what's
actually
getting
set,
but
that's
my
opinion.
So
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
to
that
and
give
at
least
give
devin
some
a
direction
on
which
way
to
go
with
them.
F
I
think
pretending
to
be
a
deaf,
the
corner
argument
of
that.
I
guess
the
like
what
keyword
arguments
are
user
would
like
to
use.
I
guess.
Okay,
there
are
lots
of
keyword,
arguments
not
necessarily
even
touched
upon
by
most
of,
like
maybe
95
percent
of
the
user,
and
only
five
percent
of
the
user
use.
Like
lots
of
those
keyword
arguments.
I
think
the
probably
what
devin
would
say.
Oh
we're
just
going
to
use
the
list
out
whatever
the
the
default
one
and
then
let
others
things
on
the
keyboard
arguments.
F
Like
how
about
this
like
because,
like
we
got
multiple
level
of
classes
that
we're
inheriting,
let's
say
the
base
class,
would
list
out
those
all
of
those
parameters,
but
some
of
the
subclass
which,
inheriting
the
upper
class
wouldn't
like
kind
of
implicitly
list
those
things.
It's
pretty
hard
to
know.
What
are
those
keyword
argument
was
in
some
sort
of
subclass,
for
example,
like
we
got
base
em
class,
but
we
got
fdm
class
which
doesn't
really
list
those
kind
of
things.
A
A
C
A
A
So
they'll
be
one
way
where
we
just
obviously
just
keyword
args
for
everything
it
gets
passed
on
through
another
way
to
be
another
way
would
be
okay.
This
is
the
only
the
options.
Only
the
new
options
from
each
subclass
are
present.
Then
the
rest
are
keyword,
args
that
are
passed
on
through
and
then.
C
Generally,
I
think
I
think
it's
a
great
suggestion
too,
because,
like
I
said
before,
I
find
it
hard
at
times
to
read
into
simpac,
and
one
reason
is
this:
that
you
almost
have
to
know
how
to
instantiate
the
class,
but
then
also
what
to
do
afterwards
to
to
to
to
use
it
properly,
but
also
to
to
saw
this
point.
I
guess
it's
a
bit
like
in
in
what
is
it?
The
pl
pi
plots
dot
plot.
A
D
D
A
D
In
my
experience,
it's
easier
to
do
a
parent-child
class
and,
like
you
know,
passing
stuff
down,
if
we
don't
use
the
keywords,
it's
kind
of
like
nicer,
if,
like
oh,
if
you
have
defaults,
then
do
like
a
donder
before
dnl
all
your
defaults.
Are
there
it's
like
it's
in
the
signature
of
the
class,
but
that's
like
it's
whatever
you
know:
people's
preferences.
C
A
B
So
doug
dropped
a
comment
in
the
gsi
slack
and
I
think
dieter
you
encountered
this
as
well
or
a
similar
issue,
we're
running
into
the
scikit-learn
dependency
issue
with
all
of
the
apps
and
hopefully
that
should
be
an
easy
fix,
but
I
think
it
kind
of
raises
the
question
some
of
these
repos.
We
were
relying
on
travis.
B
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
automate
some
of
that
with
github
actions,
it's
something
we
can
think
about.
I
think
that's
maybe
like
it's
a
second
order
concern
first,
I
think
we
need
to
get
these
things
fixed
and
kind
of
get
some
testing
in
place
so
that
we're
alerted
when
when
things
break-
and
we
don't
get
too
too
far
behind-
but
I
think
it
shouldn't
be
too
complicated
to
basically
if
we
push
to
main
on
the
gsi
labs
to
just
push
out
whatever
notebooks
are
relevant
to
the
particular
repos.
A
It
should
be
pretty
simple,
because
it's
kind
of
what
happens
with
a
few
of
the
documentation
builds
right
like
it
pushes
it
to
either
another
repository
or
it
pushes
it
to
somewhere
else.
So
it
should
be
pretty
easy
to
set
up
like
that.
We'll
have
to
get
a
few
tokens,
but
that's
should
be
it
just
have
a
we're
going
to
have
a
script
that
would
upload
them
and
then
for
each
of
those
subsequent
if
they
be
updated.
B
Yeah
because
I
wrote
that,
like
little
nb,
librarian
library
to
just
like
grab
whatever
notebooks
or
to
at
least
like
keep
track
of
a
list
of
notebooks
that
we
want,
so
I
imagine
it
shouldn't
be
too
complicated
to
do
but
yeah
it's
a
bit
challenging.
So
I
think
there's
a
few
layers
of
issues
that
we
encountered
is
a
emgsi
is
still
being
deployed
manually
via
google.
App
engine
so
be
great
to
get
that
over
to
github
pages.
B
So
the
first
issue
that
was
encountered
there
was
the
master
main
switches
all
of
our
urls
were
out
of
date
because
we
hadn't
deployed
the
website,
even
though
we
had
fixed
it
in
the
in
the
repo
and
then
the
second
layer
of
issues
is,
then
that
some
of
the
dependencies
were
causing
problems
and
so
the
notebooks
themselves,
weren't
working.
Even
when
you
get
to
the
right,
the
right
one.
So
there's
kind
of
both
of
those
issues
that
we
need
to
fix
is.
C
I
yeah,
I
do
think
that
some
might
not
be
up
for
the
new
discretized
new
sim
pack,
even
not
entirely
sure.
I
had
to
pin
quite
a
few
things
to
get
some
running,
which
I
wanted
to
show
to
some
students
to
show
it,
but
at
the
end
there
was
psychic
for
sure,
but
there
were
others.
I
I
can't
even
remember.
C
And
then
I
think,
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
in
the
current
stage
there
wouldn't
be
an
environment
where
all
notebooks
run,
because
there
are
some
notebooks
that
need
a
a
newer,
em,
geosci
and
others
that
need
an
older
one.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
I
think
as
an
entity
it
doesn't
run.
I
don't
know
since
when
the
test
fails
for
probably
a
year
at
least
when,
when
the
drive
is
shut
down,
so
yeah
things
will
have
accumulated.
B
A
B
Okay,
well
maybe
we
can
take
a
a
look
at
these
and
come
up
with
a
bit
of
a
to-do
list,
because
if
the
gsi
apps
are
or
the
gsi
labs
are
working,
then
it
should
be
very
straightforward
to
get
everything
else
up
and
running.
But
right
now
there's
lots
of
there's
a
few
weak
links
in
the
chat
which
makes
it
pretty
frustrating
for
folks
who
want
to
get
up
and
up
and
running.
A
A
A
A
Some
of
those
frequency
domain
tests
running
their
tutorials
running
a
lot
quicker
as
well,
because
some
of
one
of
those
I
think,
takes
like
20
minutes
to
run,
and
it's
just
doing
a
td
inversion,
but
it
does
the
2d
the
3d
thing
and
then
does
a
2d
inversion.
But
I
imagine
that
would
get
sped
up
decently.
D
C
D
E
Those
tests
should
be
passing,
I'm
pretty
sure.
I
checked
those
out
that.
Actually
I
was
going
to
ask
you
dom
if
I
could,
or
if
it's
okay,
to
bring
in
that
pull
request
that
you
have
for
tile.
I
was
going
to
say
if
I
can
pull
it
in
and
then
I
can
start,
we
can
start
piecemealing
it
out
and
working
on
it.
If
that's
okay,
I
saw
joe
you
commented
on
that.
Is
it
okay?
If
I
bring
it
in
and
then
we
will
which
one.
E
D
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
D
G
What
kind
of
a
typography
did
you
have?
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
that
you
know
devin's
doing
you
know
a
number
of
cross-checks
between
you
know
the
gif
codes
as
well
as
sempeg,
and
you
know
a
topographic
there's
lots
of
choices
of
topography,
but
maybe
you
have
something.
That's
that's
kind
of
interesting
and
you
could
just
use
that
as
a
test
as
a
test.
D
If
he
just
uses
the
l
block
right,
the
the
l
block
that
he's
been
benchmarking
with
it
works
because
everything
is
flat.
But
if
he
just
puts
like
you
know
as
like
a
gaussian
topo,
100
meters,
topography
all
over
the
area,
you'll
see
it
right
away.
The
the
ford
model,
like
looks
like
very,
very
noisy.
E
D
F
D
The
observed
data
is
pretty
smooth
right,
so
it's
a
line
all
right,
it's
a
line
of
mt
and
then
the
fields
are
pretty
smooth
on
the
all
the
components
like
imaginary
real
and
then,
if
I
do
a
four
model
of
just
a
half
space
on
flat
topography,
then
my
fields
are
also
they
look
like
you
know:
they're,
pretty
they're,
pretty
flat,
obviously,
but
as
soon
as
put
topo
and
that
on
the
l
block
right.
So
I
know
the
answer
of
it:
yeah.