►
From YouTube: SimPEG Meeting November 10th
Description
SimPEG weekly meeting from November 10th, 2021
A
A
A
Yes,
then
november
18th
at
2
p.m.
Pacific
time
the
day
for
the
next
seminar
should
be
getting
the
newsletter
out
pretty
quickly
if
it
hasn't
gone
out.
Yet
we
found
some
things
in
there
again
feel
free
to
do
any
big
community
updates
or
anything
to
share
as
far
as
the
newsletter
as
long
as
it
hasn't
come
out.
Yet
you
can
keep
putting
stuff
on.
A
A
So
that's
working
well
and
I'm
finishing
up
the
2d
right
now
that
should
be
good
to
go
so
once
once
we
get
those
in,
I
think
the
big
empty
pull
requests
where
it's
been
refactored
stuff
should
be
ready
to
come
in
yeah.
It's
good
because
it's
right,
it
simplifies
it,
merges
a
lot
of
the
old
empty
stuff
into
the
the
frequency
domain
formulation.
So
let's
say
it'll
take
advantage
whenever
we
do
anything
to
the
frequency
domain
stuff,
it
just
uses
the
same
machinery,
just
the
different
sources
and
receivers
and
then.
C
A
A
C
B
A
A
If
you're,
using
the
sensitivity
weighting,
you
should
have
used
a
simple
weight
or
it's
a
simple
regularization.
It
didn't
really
make
sense
to
not
use
tknoff
but
again
we're
all
we're
unifying
everything.
So
I
noticed
a
few
just
small
little
behavior
changes
that
will
be
coming
down
based
upon
your
you
had
there.
So
I
talked
to
you
about
at
least
one
of
them.
A
A
So
it
might,
it
can
change
it.
It's
just
slightly
changing
the
behavior
of
some
of
the
few
things
and
the
behavior
of
certain
runs.
I
would
I
would
rather
it
be
normalized
to
the
maximum
value
of
like
normalized
by
the
maximum
value,
just
because
it
leads
to
gives
you
more
reasonable
estimates
for
beta
instead
of
having
betas
that
are
like
time,
10
to
the
13th
power
or
something
like
something
crazy.
A
So,
but
so
I
propose
that
we
we
do.
We
continue
to
normalize
it,
but
we
push
people
to
using
that
option,
but
warn
them
that
it's
going
to
change
to
be
that
default
in
the
future.
So
we
can
have
like
just
a
switch
that
just
an
option
in
there.
It's
like
okay,
normalize
the
sensitivity
and
then
have
it
disabled
by
default.
For
now
and
put
a
warning
in
there
saying
hey,
this
option
is
going
to
change
the
default
on
in
a
future
version.
E
E
A
A
E
E
E
And
speaking
of
I
would,
I
would
suggest
that
I'll
create
a
pr
for
it,
but
instead
of
hardwiring
it
like
a
value
for
the
threshold,
we
should
just
do
like
a
percentile
right.
That
is
it's
relative
to
each
simulations,
because
just
putting
a
value
is
so
arbitrary
and
hard
to
hard
to
understand.
Yeah.
E
A
B
A
B
B
One
other
thing
about
it
too:
with
the
the
weights
is
it's
nice
when
it's
sort
of
nice
when
it's
normalized,
so
that
it
doesn't
scale
the
model
objective
function
by
a
lot?
I
know
it
doesn't
really
matter
too
much
when
you're
you're
kind
of
getting
an
estimate
of
the
starting
beta.
But
if
you
were
to
hardwire
your
starting
beta,
it
would
matter,
and
it
would
be
nice
to
have
the
the
weights
not
scale.
B
E
E
D
Going
not
too
bad
yeah,
I
wasn't
doing
too
much
in
peg
stuff,
but
then
I
kind
of
cut
back
on
to
it
when
I
needed
to
do
some
tensor
mesh
decoupling.
So
I
added
that
to
the
tile
map.
Mapping
on
the
sim
peg-
or
I
actually
haven't-
pushed
it
yet,
but
I'll
push
it
to
the
simulation
mt
or
sorry.
The
simulation
tile
yeah
just
kind
of
working
on
the
parallelization
yeah
with
the
tensor
meshes.
D
I
got
one
of
our
big
surveys
down
by
fort
or
increased
or
improved
improved
speed
by
four
times
just
by
making
two
tiles.
So
it's
looking
promising
but
other
than
that
yeah.
I
guess
if
there's
anything
else
left
to
do
on
the
simulation
mt,
I
can
help
wrap
that
up,
but
I
think
I'll
be
moving
to
the
simulation
tiled
now
dom
and
I'll
start
working
on
getting
those
tests
passing
start
getting
that
mpr.
Maybe
in.
B
E
D
E
D
D
B
Yeah,
I
got
maybe
a
couple
things
and
in
the
last
week
or
two
I
looked
through
exercising
the
properties
package,
I
started
with
the
potential
field
stuff.
There
really
wasn't
much
to
put
in
there
or
much
to
change,
except
for
two
really
important
things:
how
simpeg
handles
physical
properties
and
also
right
now,
the
survey
object
is
a
property
of
the
simulation
class.
So
these
are
things
I
didn't
really
want
to
tackle
in
this
project.
B
I
think
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
done
at
the
end,
so
I
created
a
small
pr.
That
is,
I
think,
it's
10
54..
If
somebody
could
take
a
look
at
that,
that
would
be
great
yeah.
It's
there
really
isn't
much
going
on
in
there,
but
somebody
could
take
a
look.
That
would
be
fantastic
and
then
the
other
thing
would
be
if
what's
the
the
situation
on
the
em-1b
stuff
did
that
actually
get
merged
in.
A
B
B
C
E
So
I
took
a
look
at
joe
at
your
at
your
new,
the
new
mesh
regularization
thingy
that
you
sent
yeah
test
one
yeah.
It
actually
gives
a
virtually
the
same
result
as
the
as
the
other
one.
It
doesn't
solve
the
issue
of
the
of
all
the
extra
crap
we're
getting
in
the
in
the
dc
inversion.
It
almost
gives
the
same
result
if
you
give
it
the
same
target
target
5d.
So
that's
that's
not
gonna.
That's
not
gonna
solve
it.
E
Okay,
and,
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
the
the
only
difference
is
how
the
averaging
is
done.
Right,
we're
kind
of
doing
sloppily
right
now,
we're
just
doing
a
0.5.5
over
the
hanging
faces,
whereas
I
believe
you're
doing
like
a
volumetric
averaging
right
on
the
on
those
hanging
hanging
faces.
If
you
use
the,
if
you
use
the
inner
product
in
our
product
operator,.
E
Yeah
I
hear
you,
I
hear
you,
but
it
will
require
some
thinking
because
right
now
it
doesn't
really
handle
the
active
cells
right.
It's
like
it
works
for
a
full
mesh,
but
it
doesn't
work
if
we
start
doing
like
part
part
averaging.
If
your
cell
is
you
know
if
you're
hanging
faces
or
just
one
or
the
other
anyway,
so
I'll
put
it
on
a
bike
burner,
I'm
not
going
to
touch
it
until
you
push
it.
E
A
A
E
E
B
There
are
images
that
will
like
they'll
show
you
what
the
data
looks
like
in
those
different
coordinate
systems,
and
then
let
you
recognize
it.
So
I
think
the
page,
the
page
before
about
understanding
anomalies,
is
that
except
you
don't
have
to
forward
model
anything.
So
it
kind
of
saves
you
some
work.
E
A
G
So
I'll
connect
with
him
sometime
hopefully
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
but
just
to
to
know
that
he'll
probably
be
jumping
in
asking
some
questions
on
slack,
if
not
in
the
in
the
meeting
so
exciting.
That's
you
know
the
mt
development
is
coming
along
and
we
might
have
a
wider
set
of
users
coming
on
board.