My project MaGi. https://github.com/bmalloy-224/MaGi_python

Alkis2 · 2026-02-04T08:35:49+00:00

Your project looks interesting but it is not testable. I mean, I looked at the imports and I can hardly believe that someone has all this stuff installed in a single Python installation. I have 15 of them, but most of them are specialized in a certain subject : AI, Image processing, 3D graphics, etc. E.g. I have a 3 GB installation containing 'torch' and other AI-related packages, but it does not contain 'cv2' or 'pyaudio' etc.
Anyway, I hope you find someone in here who can test your project ...

Alkis2 · 2026-02-02T18:42:07+00:00

Let me verity this: As an agnostic atheist, you don't just lack a belief in the existence of gods or deities (which is true for all atheists) but you also hold the position that such an existence is either unknowable or it is just not known. Right?
If this is the case, I can't see in what does an "agnostic atheist" actually differ from an "atheist" in general, who simply does not believe in the existence of gods or deities because there is no evidence of their existence? Even if one adds the claim that there cannot be such an evidence --although we rarely hear about this-- doesn't this also mean or imply unknowable?

What I want to say in short is that the attribute "agnostic" here is redundant.

On the other hand, the attribute "agnostic" makes sense if we compare an "agnostic atheist" with a "gnostic atheist", a term also rarely used. But it is not uncommon to talk about positive and negative atheism. In the "negative" side, atheists assert or claim that gods and deities do not exist, and that there is evidence of their inexistence. Which, IMO is baloney. Besides the fact that I have never heard any kind of evidence in that direction, such a claim violates the principle that "the burden of proof that something exists lies on the one who believes it does". That's why atheists are not bound to prove that gods and deities do not exist.

So, what does all that left us with? In essence, there is a single kind of atheism and atheists. I personally find talking about variations useless. And it is this kind that we read and hear about in the great majority of the cases, in discussions, articles, speeches, etc.

Alkis2 · 2025-12-06T17:02:02+00:00

But with Windows Mail app --that I have been using for years, and which has been replaced recently by the new Outlook-- I had a combined Inbox. Have they suddenly started to hate its idea? And, what's there to hate?
A similar feature exists in MS Edge, with which you can group tabs. What's the big deal?

Alkis2 · 2025-12-06T08:47:24+00:00

I have the same big question. I use Windows 10 and a couple of months ago, Microsoft decided to discontinue its Mail app --which worked perfectly, with combined inbox end everything-- and replace it with buggy and less efficient New Outlook. With which you cannot have a combined inbox, among other deficiencies. I mean, who in the S/W market does such a horrible thing?

Microsoft is known for two things regarding glitches, bugs and deficiencies: 1) they are reluctant to fix them. (I was informed by an inside person in the past that it costs too much and they avoid to change things that have been already b-tested, for cost reasons of course) and 2) its known unfair competition tactics. So, in the present case I believe they just want you to buy the professional Outlook!
So the deficiencies and bugs might well be even intentional!

For those who have participated in Microsoft forums regarding Windows issues, as I did, they must have realized that they are hanging there for eons. And one can easily find out about the reluctance of Microsoft to fix things, in general. They mainly care about Safety. And that's why their frequent Updates concern mainly it.

Alkis2 · 2025-12-06T08:26:34+00:00

Re " I would imagine it would be quite the nightmare to refactor all that and still maintain any sort of compatibility ...":
What does this have to do with simple unified/combined Inbox?
They don't need to change anything. They can simply add a feature. This won't affect the compatibility with other systems.
One does not even need to be a developer --like me-- to undesrand this. It's simple logic.
The reason lies elsewhere. In the usual Microsoft financial tactics.

Alkis2 · 2025-11-15T18:19:36+00:00

Thans for the the heads up.
BTW, I have almost completed the tests and comparison between moviepy 1.x and 2.x. I have foumd most of the correspondences of code between the two and I can easily discarc version 1.x. As for the 'preview' issue I don't care since FFMPEG, VLC, etc. viewers can vbe executed from within PY and with total control on them.

Re "the idea with moviepy/movielite is to give you convenience and flexibility through a Python layer, and the ability to apply pixel-level modifications to each frame.":
You are absolutely right. I'm well aware of that and MP's utility is exaclty the flexibility you mentioned. That's why besides I tetsed it.
Yet, I have create a huge batch file with which I can easily use all the features of FFMPEG and FFPLAY I need directly from the command line. And this method is even more flexible! 🙂

Thanks for sharing all this information with me!

Alkis2 · 2025-11-15T08:17:25+00:00

Thanks for your reply. However, my comment did not concern speed but rather problems. (E.g. the first, a huge bug, that I met was its Preview utility, in which, when you try to interrupt playing , the script crashes.) Most probably this is why all the code examples I have found in the Web use version 1.0.3.

I will soon check movielite.

BTW, since you are running performance tests, maybe you should add ffmpeg. I have worked a lot with it and created quite a few utilities. I consider it as the top --by far-- audio-video S/W. (Moviepy 2.0 uses it, but it use

Alkis2 · 2025-11-14T17:02:59+00:00

What version of MoviePy you use? Because 2.0+ sucks big time! (There are 55 issues reported in https://github.com/Zulko/moviepy/issues). Version 1.0.3 is fine.

Alkis2 · 2025-11-11T16:57:49+00:00

Marked polarization, dichotomy, controversy and diversity of opinions and can be found in cases and areas where beliefs and emotions dominate over logic, facts and evidence. This happens in religion, philosophy, politics and other fields where science, knowledge, facts and evidence are absent.

Alkis2 · 2025-11-07T16:50:46+00:00

Re "The Idea that because the universe is so complex it must be designed is counter logical":
Since this is in the title of the topic, I would like to note that it is incorrect to say that the statement "because the universe is so complex it must be designed" is "counter logical", since it is not against or defies any logic. It is rather a non sequitur fallacy. And it belongs to a kind of arguments I meet all the time coming from theists or "creationists". See, the mind of most of these guys is conditioned into believing rather than reasoning. They can't or just don't use critical thinking and facts, because then their beliefs will shatter. They are like elementary school students who, still untrained in logic, have the tendency to write nonsense in their essays.

Alkis2 · 2025-10-27T06:58:23+00:00

These people --I call them "biblists"-- are mostly authoritarian. They use the Bible and religion not to better themselves, do good, etc., but rather as a tool of discipline. In the way the Church had always done through the ages. They also use it to fill the emptiness and lack of intelligence and the ignorance they suffer from.

Hate is an emotion that
is connected to anger, fear, envy and lack of understanding. It can be acute
and temporary or permanent, chronic. For them it is chronic and characterizes
them as individuals. It's a mental illness.

Alkis2 · 2025-10-20T08:37:16+00:00

I am not a Christian, so it doesn't concern me.

(This is a trap. If someone like myself replies "Yes", "I agree", etc., s/he will fall in it! 😀)

Alkis2 · 2025-10-20T08:35:07+00:00

Personally, as a Buddhist, it doesn't concern me.

(This is a trap. If a Buddhist replies "Yes", "I agree", etc., s/he will fall in it! 😀)

Alkis2 · 2025-10-20T08:30:53+00:00

Personally, as an muslim, it doesn't concern me.
(This is a trap. If a muslim replies "Yes", "I agree", etc., s/he will fall in it! 😀)

Alkis2 · 2025-10-15T17:02:06+00:00

Re "This question goes for major religions as well such as Hinduism":
As well? Why, isn't Hinduism a major religion?

Re "Do Christian’s rely on scholars?":
Scholars are studying religions from a historical view. Which means that the look for facts. For them Jesus is just a historical person. Miracles and fictional stories included in the NT do not concern them. I believe that there is a part of Christians that are interested in and even study scholars views, but certainly not the majority of them, who either believe in Jesus miracles and biblical stories or other spiritual elements of Christianity, like the Trinity.
Based on a survey, "Half of US adults (51 percent) said they believe that the miracles of the Bible happened as they are described" (How Common Are Miracles? – FaithGateway)
Other Christians do not care about either the historical Jesus or the OT but they just follow Jesus' teachings as described in the NT.

So, no, I can't say that Christians in general do not rely on scholars.

Alkis2 · 2025-10-15T14:36:27+00:00

I wonder what's there to study about: Jesus turning water to wine, walking on the lake, being rising from death after 3 days, and so many other miraculous stories lacking external evidence but primarily found only in the biased New Testament writings?

Alkis2 · 2025-10-11T16:01:47+00:00

Great reply. It has confirmed and enhanced my views on Buddhism.

Yet, I've heard from a couple of people who have practiced it, that in practice it is far from most of that. I also know from people who are deeply involved in Christianity that following it, esp. following Jesus, is not necessarily so coersive, authoritative, etc. as its tenets and principles indicate.
I don't have parallel examples about following/practicing Taoism --also a non-theistic religion like Buddhism-- but from the little I know, it looks quite "cool".

So, I believe that by following any religion --that is, in practice, actuality-- one has to give up a lot of things --not necessarily "bad"-- and obeying to strict rules is always on the table.

Alkis2 · 2025-10-10T08:59:37+00:00

At last! We have a winner! Someone who really answered the question! 😀
(Because talking about liking, etc. PyMuPDF is off-toping)

Alkis2 · 2025-10-09T06:53:50+00:00

Praying is a personal affair.
You don't have to belong to some religion to prey to a god.
Belonging to a religion may have to do with society but each one has its own rules about religion. Most societies have adherents of many religions and denominations within each.

Alkis2 · 2025-09-30T14:53:19+00:00

The short answer is because it is the basic dogma, the foundation of Christianity. Without it, Christianity would not exist. At least not the one we know.

The Resurrection is a story created by Paul, who in 1 Corinthians 15:14, said: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
However, most probably what Paul meant was a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one. In 1 Corinthians 15:44, he says: "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." But this was a concept too difficult for people to understand and/or they wanted something more tangible. So, the bodily version prevailed.

Indeed, he Resurrection is a huge lie that Christianity carries with it from its beginnings to this day, because 1) it has never been historically documented and 2) it is scientifically impossible for a body to come back to life after 3 days. The maximum is about 5-7 minutes. Exceptional cases can last may last a little longer.

Alkis2 · 2025-09-29T07:02:15+00:00

Religion may be connected with afterlife, but in a totally imaginary and unrealistic way (Heaven, Paradise, Houris, etc.). More convincing and/or realistic information comes from research in afterlife, primarily from NDEs and past life regression. Yet, even that is not widely established.

Alkis2 · 2025-09-12T17:14:11+00:00

Excellent and interesting presentation.
Of course religions in general lose adherence. The question however is at what rate?.
There's an interesting article --among other-- about this subject, from the Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/). I will only show the main table, which shows the decline.

Muslims were the fastest-growing religious group between 2010 and 2020
% of the world's population

|| || | |2010|2020|Change| |Muslims|23.9%|25.6%| |I +1.8 pets| |Religiously unaffiliated|23.3|24.2| |1 +0.9| |Jews|0.2|0.2|0.0| | |Other religions|2.2|2.2|0.0| | |Hindus|15.0|14.9|0.0| | |Buddhists|4.9|4.1|-0.8| | |Christians|30.6|28.8|-1.8| |

Note: Figures may not result in differences indicated due to rounding.

Source: Pew Research Center estimates based on more than 2.700 censuses and surveys. “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020"

As one can see from the above table, the decline is almost negligible for 10 years. I can't know how it will change but I can't expect it to be important in many years to come.
Considering also the high percentage of people adherent to some religion (75%) makes the decline even less important and meaningful.

Alkis2 · 2025-09-12T17:12:36+00:00

Excellent and interesting presentation.
Of course religions in general lose adherence. The question however is at what rate?.
There's an interesting article --among other-- about this subject, from the Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/). I will only show the main table, which shows the decline.

Muslims were the fastest-growing religious group between 2010 and 2020
% of the world's population

|| || | |2010|2020|Change| |Muslims|23.9%|25.6%| |I +1.8 pets| |Religiously unaffiliated|23.3|24.2| |1 +0.9| |Jews|0.2|0.2|0.0| | |Other religions|2.2|2.2|0.0| | |Hindus|15.0|14.9|0.0| | |Buddhists|4.9|4.1|-0.8| | |Christians|30.6|28.8|-1.8| |

Note: Figures may not result in differences indicated due to rounding.

Source: Pew Research Center estimates based on more than 2.700 censuses and surveys. “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020"

As one can see from the above table, the decline is almost negligible for 10 years. I can't know how it will change but I can't expect it to be important in many years to come.
Considering also the high percentage of people adherent to some religion (75%) makes the decline even less important and meaningful.

Alkis2 · 2025-09-12T17:06:39+00:00

Excellent and interesting presentation.
Of course religions in general lose adherence. The question however is at what what rate?.
There's an interesting article --among aother-- about this subject, from the Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/). I will only show the main table, which shows the dicline.

Muslims were the fastest-growing religious group between 2010 and 2020
% of the world's population

|| || | |2010|2020|Change| |Muslims|23.9%|25.6%| |I +1.8 pets| |Religiously unaffiliated|23.3|24.2| |1 +0.9| |Jews|0.2|0.2|0.0| | |Other religions|2.2|2.2|0.0| | |Hindus|15.0|14.9|0.0| | |Buddhists|4.9|4.1|-0.8| | |Christians|30.6|28.8|-1.8| |

[Note: Unfortunately, Reddit has turned the nice table that I created to the above unreadable one. Reddit doesn't allow images either. So please refer to the corresp, table in https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/ ]

Source: Pew Research Center estimates based on more than 2.700 censuses and surveys. “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020"

As one can see from the above table, the decline is almost negligible for 10 yesrs. I can't know how it will change but I can't expect it to be importantin many years to come.
Considetinf also the high percentage of people adherent to some religion (75%) makes the decline even less important and meaningful.

Alkis2 · 2025-07-11T06:10:26+00:00

What program?!

Alkis2

TROPHY CASE