►
From YouTube: SimPEG Meeting November 13
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
D
Yeah
I
don't
have
too
much
I
played
around
with
the
new
implementation
with
desk
yeah.
It's
it's
working
really
good,
but
I
found
that
when
I
jump
up
to
like
it's
a
like
a
24
core
machine,
if
I
run
all
24
cores
when
we
call
da
or
the
some
it
just
the
memory
blows
up
it
like
loads
everything
from
the
hard
drive
onto
RAM.
B
Actually,
if
you
have
the
one
like
one
or
two
lines
where
it's
actually
doing
this,
if
you
want
to
just
toss
that
in
slack
we
can,
we
can
take
a
look
because
I
think
there's
a
way
in
desk
to
basically
have
have
it
like
in
currently
some
so
rather
than
trying
to
load
up
24
things.
It'll
just
do
two
by
twos
until
you
get
to
the
end.
Okay,
so.
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
On
a
single
core
and
that's-
and
that
is
that's
not
virtual-
that's
all
straight
core!
Okay,.
D
B
D
Yeah
I
can
do
a
comparison
at
the
very
least
to
check
it
over
other
than
that
no
MT
got
a
little
stalled
other
than
did
some
more
tests
and
yeah.
It
works
with
sparse
B
field
and
a
bunch
of
a
field
and
like
what
vice
versa.
Now,
so
you
don't
have
to
have
like
a
B
field
for
every
station
anymore
and
yeah.
You
lose
resolution
as
you
decrease
your
B
field,
sensors,
but
yeah
work,
pretty
well
cool
and
also
open
watson.
C
D
B
D
B
That
sounds
good.
One
thing
that
I
think
we
can
look
at
when
pulling
that
in
is
just
thinking
through
how
to
potentially
have
like
similar
in
the
regularization,
how
we
have
a
combo
regularization,
how
we
might
have
a
combo
data
misfit,
so
that
these
things
are
like
a
bit
more
composable.
So,
if
later
on,
we
implemented
like
a
different
norm
for
the
data
misfit
that
you
could
still
like
tack,
tackle
this
new
statistic
so
that
you
can
like
swap
them
out.
Okay,
but
that's
fine,
that's
something
that
we
can
do.
D
C
A
A
B
A
A
E
E
E
E
F
Just
mapping
out
how
we're
going
to
refactor
the
utils
stuff,
so
I've
made
an
issue
in
the
repository
and
it
links
to
a
Google,
Doc
and
so
I
guess.
I've
got
a
bit
of
a
vision
on
how
we're
going
to
parse
this
out
and
maybe
a
bit
of
a
strategy
for
how
we're
going
to
incorporate
those
changes,
because
I
I
have
a
feeling
that
if
we
don't
make
some
decisions,
now
we're
going
to
end
up
having
a
branch
that
sits
there
and
is
incompatible
with
it.
F
I
really
like
a
way
to
set
it
up
so
that
we
can.
We
can
kind
of
add
stuff
bit
by
bit,
but
that
we
won't
end
up
with
lots
of
kind
of
merge
conflicts
or
a
sort
of
clutter,
yeah,
so
I'm
kind
of
working
on
that
now.
So
that's
basically
it
if
you
want
to
do
a
quick
tour
of
that.
What
I've
done
at
the
end
of
everyone
else's
time,
then
I
can
I
can
do
that
or
I
can
be
with
anybody
individually,
yeah.
B
I
think,
let's
make
some
time
to
actually
chat
through
that
if
it
says
no
other
big
topics
that
come
up
sure
cool
thanks,
Devon
dawn,
do
you
have
any
any
quick
updates.
C
E
A
C
B
That's
really
cool
Dom
excellent
I
just
have
a
quick
update
and
we
can
chat
about
this.
Perhaps
after
Devon
has
given
a
bit
of
an
overview
of
the
Youth
Hills
I
got
us
a
discourse
site,
so
I
was
able
to.
They
have
a
like
an
email
or
forum
for
open
source
projects
and
you
can
apply
and
just
ask
for
a
free
site,
and
so
we
now
have
one
for
simple.
So
it's
linked.
B
It's
simple
discourse
group
I'll
drop
that
in
the
notes,
so
I
think
we
can
give
this
a
thought.
There's
no
content
in
there
right
now,
but
I'm
wondering
if
we
basically
want
to
try
and
replace
the
Google
group
that
we
have
with
this
instead,
because
they
don't
think
I
mean
the
Google
group
is
just
like
a
bit
tricky
to
actually
have
as
a
reference
afterwards
and
discourse
integrates
fairly
nicely
with
github
I'll
make
you
can
reference
issues
and
stuff
like
that.
B
It's
one
of
the
main
places
where
we
have
conversations
in
the
Jupiter
community
that
are
not
like
specifically
tied
to
like
fixing
something
in
code
and
so
yeah
I.
Think
that
there's
potential
that
we
might
want
to
try
and
think
about
something
like
that
for
first
impact
and
because
then
the
like
solutions
and
things
like
that
are
goo
global.
So
if
somebody
actually
searches
for
like
simple
and
then
we,
you
know
some
sort
of
question
and
if
we
have
a
related
discussion
on
that,
it
should
pop
up.
B
Whereas
I
don't
think
that
does
with
Google
Groups
yeah.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say,
like
let's
poke
around
and
see
if
we
can
do
some
brainstorming
and
if
people
are
interested
in
using
that.
As
a
like
the
prime
place.
To
answer
questions,
because
I
think
slack
is
also
I
mean
it's
great
for
a
sort
of
immediate
conversation
when
you're
debugging,
something
with
somebody
one-on-one.
But
in
order
to
like
actually
capture
solutions.
And
if
somebody
just
emails
you
and
as
asking
like
a
fairly
basic
question
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
preserve
I.
B
C
C
B
Do
have
a
few
people
in
the
Google
channel,
so
there's
a
handful
of
questions
that
have
come
through,
but
it's
been
hard
to
respond
and
it's
not
necessarily
that
those
responses
are
like
all
that
discoverable
afterwards.
So
in
a
lot
of
ways,
it
feels
like
a
lot
of
work
to
answer
it
like
a
specific
person,
whereas
I
think
a
discourse
like
we
sort
of
do
the
service
for
one
person,
but
then
it
is
actually
something
that's
a
bit
easier
to
reference
down.
The
line
is.
D
C
B
C
B
So
there's
categories
for
different
conversations
that
are
happening
so
there's
a
general
Q&A.
There's
things
specific
to
finder
to
prolab
community
chat
these
sorts
of
things.
We
could
focus
them,
maybe
more
closer
to
what
we
have
in
stock
right
now,
like
maybe
by
method
and
then
maybe
we've
got
some
things
for,
like
general
questions
and
getting
started
those
sorts
of
things.
B
B
C
B
B
And
I
mean
to
like,
if
we
can
start
putting
enough
links-
and
we
can
even
add
things
in
github,
like
the
you
can
add-
an
issue
template
so
that
people
actually
would
see
a
link
to
discourse
for
more
general
questions
and
things
like
that.
So
we
can
sort
of
try
and
give
people
pointers
just
to
like
where
they
should
be
asking
questions.
B
Yeah,
so
let's
maybe
what
we
can
try
is
like
just
sort
of
poke
around
some
of
the
existing
discourses
and
see
see
if
this
thing,
if
you,
if
we
all
think
it's
going
to
work
and
then
we
can
try
and
sort
of
set
up
some
infrastructure
there
and
then
maybe
start
pointing
people
who
are
asking
questions
in
the
mailing
list.
At
least
here,
and
we
can,
you
know,
see
how
it
works
and
if
it's
not
working
for
us,
we
can.
We
can
figure
something
else
out,
but
yeah.
We
can
give
it
a
try.
A
F
Very
basic
refactoring
of
the
website
and
it's
kind
of
just
hanging
there
and
I,
would
like
to
try
and
merge
that
in
I.
Think
I
did
too
much
stuff
on
the
whole
request
that
I
have,
but
I
would
like
to
go
and
make
a
clean,
multiple
request
that
does
that
highest
level
refactoring
and
creates
a
tutorial
section
and
puts
those
in
there.
Because
I
mean
when
asked
me.
F
B
F
C
F
C
A
C
B
B
F
Yeah
so
it
seemed
like
there
was
four
potentially
five
ways
that
we
needed
to
parse
things
up,
and
maybe
we
could
do
it
all
under
sort
of
the
utils
master
class,
or
maybe
we
want
to
shift
things
up
one
level,
but
it
seems
like
we've
got
analytics
so
some
kind
of
computation
like
making
rotation
matrix
or
the
solution
to
a
field
for
a
magnetic
dipole.
We
also
have
IO
utils,
so
anything
that's
going
to
output
information
or
anything.
F
F
It
wouldn't
be
too
difficult
to
make
them
for
airborne
iam
example,
or
something
like
that
so
really
efficient
ways
of
creating
surveys
where
you
wouldn't
have
to
be
kind
of
scripting,
your
own
for
loops,
basically,
and
then
drivers
I
think
maybe
for
the
potential
fields
we've
put
in
some
drivers,
because
people
wanted
to
use
it
and
that's
that's
another
kind
of
thing.
So
it
seemed
like
those
those
five
things
are
where
we
want
to
partition
anything
not
directly
related
to
setting
up
a
simulation
when.
B
Wick,
just
one
quick
note
with
analytics,
ideally
things
that
are
solving
like
closed
form.
Solutions
should
be
in
geo,
Anna,
so
stuff
like
a
magnetic
dipole.
Those
sorts
of
things.
Ideally
all
of
that
is,
is
in
geo
Anna.
It
might
not
be
right
now
and
that's
that's
okay.
We
can
still
keep
some
of
that
in
simple,
but
down
the
line,
things
that
are
like
the
solution
for
a
magnetic
dipole
or
an
electric
dipole,
or
you
know
a
loop
over
half
space,
those
sorts
of
things.
Those
forms
should
be
in
geo,
Anna,
yeah,.
F
B
B
One
quick
thought
is
that,
like
it
sounds
like
you're,
almost
laying
out
basically
like
a
top-level
files
like
the
top-level
structure
and
I'm
wondering
actually,
if
we
can
get
rid
of
the
word
utils
altogether
and
just
have
this
be
basically
IO
plotting
or
vis
survey
design
and
drivers
and
have
those
just
be
top
level
things
in.
Yes,.
F
B
F
F
B
C
B
F
Like
we're
all
kind
of
okay
with
yeah,
we
want
it
to
be
top
level.
So
let
me
just
we
want
it
to
be
something
more
along
the
lines
of
this
on
the
top
level
as
opposed
to
utils
dot,
and
then
everything
which
I
think
we've
all
agreed
on
and
then
really
I
think
the
challenge
becomes.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
go
and
transfer
this
over
in
a
way
that
we
can?
We
can
do
it
in
pieces
with
a
crazy-cool
request
or
stuff.
That's
conflicting
with
multiple
branches.
F
I
definitely
want
anyone's
advice
on
this,
but
I
almost
thought
that
if
we
could,
if
we
could
branch
off
of
the
base
simulation
branch-
and
we
could
put
it-
we've
decided
on
what
our
file
structure
is,
our
file
hire
our
class
hierarchy.
Then
we
put
in
those
those
folders
and
almost
like
placeholder
in
it.
Pi
files
I,
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
work,
but
that
the
structure
is
all
there
and
that
would
be
merged
to
any
branch
likes.
F
A
simulation
underscore
PF
and
so
now
we'd
be
able
to
transfer
things
over
and
basically
fill
that
and
I.
Don't
think
we'd
end
up
with
lots
of
merge
conflicts
as
opposed
to
a
situation
where
I
start
with
with
none
of
this
and
I
try
and
make
the
individual
directories
in
say,
simulation
underscore
PF
and
then,
when
you
start
to
bring
in
all
the
separate
kind
of
sets
of
folders
in
that
they
might
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
a
way.
F
B
Are
in
the
refactor
stage
is
if,
at
the
very
top
level,
we
basically
have
from
utils
import,
make
bec
and
then
in
the
code
below
you're,
just
using
make
back,
and
so
what's
nice
about
doing.
That
is
then,
if
we
need
to
update
like
where
make
BEC
lives,
you
only
have
to
do
that
once
in
the
top
line
of
the
file,
you
don't
have
to
go
and
update
all
of
it
pads
throughout
the
Reston
throughout
the
rest
of
simpe.
Does
that
make
sense,
yeah.
B
F
F
B
The
workflow
is
that
actually,
your
first
full
request
is
just
fixing
the
current
imports.
It
doesn't
change
any
file
structure
of
utils.
It
just
goes
in
and
makes
it
very
transparent
where
make
vac
is
being
imported
from
and
then
when
you
go
in
and
actually
start
moving
code
around
now
like
we
only
have
to
deal
with
the
imports.
F
Yes,
it
was
that
I
wasn't
going
to
go
and
move
anything.
I
was
going
to
make
a
copy
of
it
in
the
new
home
that
it's
going
to
live
and
then
once
I
did
that
then
then
at
some
point
and
then
start
to
go
and
change
where
it's
calling
it
from.
So
there
will
be
a
time
where
there
would
be
I,
guess,
say
two
locations
where
you
could
import
and
make
that
from,
and
then
you
can
switch
it
to
the
new
location.
Once.
A
C
B
Thank
you,
Tom
yeah
cuz.
We
we
don't
want.
We
definitely
don't
want
to
have
two
copies
of
the
make
that
function.
What
you
can
do
is
we
can
leave
old
files
that
allow
imports
and
then
throw
a
depreciation
warning
and
so
yeah
we
can.
We
can
maybe
sketch
that
out
in
the
issue
and
Dom,
if
you're,
if
you're
going
to
help
that
would
be
awesome
and
so
feel
free
to
ping,
and
we
can
maybe
have
like
a
little
more
focused
meeting
if
that's
helpful
down
the
line.
Yeah.
F
Well,
I
guess:
the
important
thing
is
that
we
we
know
we
want
to
go
and
take
this
functionality.
We
want
to
go
and
put
it
in
a
different
file
structure.
Third,
we
need
a.
We
need
to
come
to
consensus
and
have
a
very
clear,
step-by-step
process
on
how
we
hope
to
accomplish
this,
and
once
we
have
that,
then
then
it's
just
you
know
putting
in
work.
So
I
guess
I
want
to
figure
that
out
sooner
as
opposed
to
going
for
it
and
then
finding
out.
F
B
C
F
C
B
B
Yeah
exactly
because,
if
we
get
that
like
standard
imports
in
right
away,
then
it's
much
easier
to
sort
of
have
each
of
the
branches
continue
marching
forward
doing
whatever
that's
integration,
these
sorts
of
things
that
we're
doing
and
then
it'll
be
trivial
to
imply
cream
merge
in
the
movement
of
utils.
As
long
as
like
we
haven't,
we
haven't
actually
gone
in
and
changed
anything
okay.
B
C
B
D
What
about
on
the
topic
of
pull
requests
there
I
think
like
what
do
you
think
Dom
I
think
the
solution
we
have
is
it's
good
for,
like
it
only
seems
to
be
affected
with
memory
when
you
really
scale
up
but
I,
think
for
a
full
request.
I
think
it's
safe
to
start
pulling
in
I
looked
at
the
Travis
stuff
too,
and
everything
seems
to
be
passing
and
failing
the
same
as
the
simulation
class.
Excellent,
so
yeah
I,
don't
know,
maybe
just
tie
it
up
and
just
get
it
moved
on
and
then
do
that's.
C
C
B
C
D
B
That's
really
fine
and
that's
just
something
that
I
so
we'll
have
to
change
that
in
this
set
up,
and
this
is
the
stuff
we
can
deal
with
in
the
post,
but
in
the
setup,
pi
and
then
that's
something
we'll
have
to
just
make
a
note
of
when
we
merge
it
in
and
do
the
release
we'll
have
to
update
it
on
kondeh
forger.
But
that's
that's
all
fine.
Okay,.
D
C
D
A
D
C
C
C
Yes,
all
right
yeah,
so
those
all
the
energy
I
went
to
Lowe's
or
I'll
download
from
that,
but
it's
pretty
big,
so
we
shove
them
away.
I
think
instead
honor
my
community
Maddox
to
the
baths
and
I
basically
need
all
of
them.
So
I
I
just
download
them
all
and
then
transfer
them
into
the
next
area,
and
he
goes
no.
They
are
necessary.
I
can
just
square
everywhere.
Parts
I
want
in
street,
that's
kind
of
nice.