If you publish in a journal that has closed access, there is generally no fee to publish.

What field are you in? In the life sciences, there's normally a fee to publish closed-access and a higher one for open-access. My last paper was open access and costed about 3500, compared to 1500 pay walled.

That last neighbor bit.

Editor: remember, you need to have a statement about negatives or limitations, can't have only positives.

Writer: uhh you got it, boss, I'm sure I can think of something.

Jibberish.

Not my field, but I don't think it's even possible to really pinpoint "the" most recent evolutionary step, not to mention being able to define "step" in an incredibly slow variable with multiple layers of continuity (individual, population, and whole species levels).

But I would say that it is very recent for sure, as lactase persistence is a trait that really only started (above "noise" level stochastic mutations in the population) when we started using dairy some 6000 years ago because of selection pressure.

Always thought it's a play on machine learning, but I'm most probably wrong.

Oh wow nice! Thank you :) if this grows and helps people even a quarter as much as /r/ImageJ helped me, I'd be super happy

This is actually an amazing idea

It's becoming increasingly clear that image analysis is really heading for being a domain of artificial intelligence. It's a bit scary, because as a physiologist with no background in computer science, I find it very difficult to find positions in bio image analysis since most seem to ask for anything from advanced experience in supervised machine learning to full blown deep learning model development and spatial statistics. But it's a good thing for science, just not for amateurs who would like to build a career in the field like me..

2700 euros. The not necessarily bad part is making me uneasy, are there major issues with it?

Oh wow thank you for the detailed response! Yeah the memory thing bugged me a lot, a newer version with the 4070 goes up to 64 GB max, while this one is capped to 48. But that one, despite being the same price, is not available for installment payment on Amazon, and my broke ass can't afford to pay it all at once. Otherwise, the other things seem okay. I didn't know about the GPU being held back, but I hope that's not too much of reduction in its computing power.

Haha yeah I got lucky :D

I absolutely agree with you about HR writing the postings and the transient obsession with buzzwords. However, I think there's some hard truth to AI displacing classical image analysis approaches or limiting it to pre and post processing. There are many serious issues with AI (deep learning specifically) as an approach for sure, such as black box modeling which gets in the way of rational scientific inquiry, the need for very large data sets for proper convergence, and maybe even hallucination in advanced models. But these issues are a) possibly resolved within a few years with approaches like explainable AI and statistical sampling for the data size perhaps, and b) don't negate the advantages of simpler AI approaches.

For example, I think supervised machine learning is incredibly useful for allowing complex tasks like segmenting weird objects (like glial cells) and there are even some well established deep learning models for segmenting such things too. So it can be very useful to employ such strategies for certain steps in a pipeline, but making the entire pipeline one giant model is very difficult and unreliable.

Digital pathology is becoming a proper field very quickly, I just hope I can find a footing somewhere in it, because I found myself becoming extremely passionate about image analysis and my career future is looking a bit shakey.

Mate... I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I don't see the paper for myself, I'm inclined to be critical of your summary of it. I don't disagree that it is plausible conservatives indeed are more wealthy, but you have too many assumptions in your comment for any proper conclusion to be taken.

And the idea about altruism isn't really mine, it's a very very old and still existing idea in philosophy. Of course it has proponents and opponents, but it hasn't really been rejected to a degree sufficient to dismiss it, it just remains like pretty much all philosophical concepts, debated. So claiming it is false is a bit arrogant, especially without a proper argument. It would be like claiming free will exists or doesn't exist with confidence (and this analogy is ironic because egoism is a significant part of the free will debate).

And btw, before you think I'm defending conservatives, you should know I'm a scientist, so I am critical of anything and everything until I see the evidence, and even then, I am critical of the way the evidence was gathered and how it was interpreted. I'm not trying to be "pedantic," I'm trying to be accurate, because a minute twist on the truth makes it false.

Wish I could help, but my knowledge is negligible in this regard. However, I believe your question came up before on image.sc. Some people seem to be using NetBeans for debugging?

For example here and maybe here.

Perhaps @[email protected] can help? If not, you could try posting on image.sc?

Seems to work

All basic science comes with limitations, just like human clinical trials (heterogeneity and limited scope of control, let's not even talk about observational). But I don't think it's of very little use. I'm just talking generally, I didn't go through the paper thoroughly to give a technical comment, but if a treatment exacerbates a pre-existing condition or triggers a condition in an at-risk model, I'd think it can be quite useful because such circumstances do occur plenty in humans.

Okay, so I solved the issue for anyone curious. The improvement is a 59% faster computation, so days/over a week saved in terms of the big picture.

The new approach: I simply create a Euclidean distance map where each non zero pixel is now value-encoded with it's distance from my coords. I do that with just two ramps, the Euclidean distance equation, and image arithmetic. And then simply threshold the image after getting min and max. Of course a few things to resolve equidistant pixels and such, but all good.

Can't believe I didn't know about this. Thanks a lot! This should shave several lines off my macros.

Wow, thank you so much for the advice! Means a lot that :) and thank you for the pin!

I will adjust the description to welcome a more broad audience and see what I can do about the other pointers. Still trying to get the hang of how Lemmy works lol.

Another small note: You can also adjust this script to include time taken per image and in total. Just using the timestamp commands and some math at the end of the macro spit out in the a userprompt window :)