I have had a similar idea for the past few years: less an AI model that takes in a photo and generates a video, more a movement planning tool given a 3D model of the wall.
Echoing some of the other comments, I think it would be more interesting to not just see a single avatar climbing the problem, but to see many possible approaches to the same problem, even for climbers with the same body type. This way, even skilled climbers that are stuck on a problem can consider alternate beta/techniques that they may find easier to execute.
Another option for people who don't have additional mouse buttons is to install addons for mouse gestures, such as Gesturefy [1]. You can then bind undo close tab, next/prev tab, and others to a mouse gesture, allowing you to do those actions without button hunting on the screen.
I was going to mention this plugin. I haven't fully mastered quickly jumping around in it, but it's one of those things that when it's useful, it's VERY useful.
Ditto. Unless I have to go back a lot of edits, I don't actually use the plugin that often. I've mapped my undo/redo keys to traverse the undo tree instead of the undo stack:
nnoremap u g-
nnoremap <C-r> g+
It takes a little bit of getting use to, but it takes care of most instance where I need a previous edit from a minute ago.
> Sometimes I think of Python as the Nash Equilibrium of programming languages
FYI: What you're describing is not a Nash equilibrium, but a Pareto optimal point [1]. They are similar in that you couldn't do any better, but Nash equilibria is in terms of whether this would cause other players to change their strategies, while Pareto optimality is only about trading off different features/dimensions.
Think of the developers as players competing against each other trying to get their ideas (PEPs) incorporated into the language, seeking individual recognition, credit, etc., and also think of languages competing against each other for developer attention, and then it will make a bit more sense why I called it a "Nash Equilibrium" :-)
Nash equilibria are mainly interesting when they are not Pareto optimal. Both the developers and users of a language, if being rational, should prefer languages to be on the Pareto frontier, but where on that frontier depends on how you weight the trade-offs.
There are more constraints than that - the corresponding words in each phrase are also the same parts of speech, and are often read with a specific cadence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antithetical_couplet
I prefer the version by Magnus Hovland Hoff [1], which makes the guessing explicit. There is a "Request Help" button that will let you reveal any square you want - but only if there is no other way to progress without guessing (otherwise you lose). This turns Minesweeper into a neat little puzzle game.
Can you say more about how you use Airtable? To me Airtable has a really appealing low/zero startup cost, but then I'm always tripped up by not being able to do arbitrary queries, joins, etc. to create new views.
I use Airtable for "quantified self" type things like logging workouts and health metrics, also tracking reviews of books and movies, planning travel, and anything that I would otherwise use spreadsheets for.
By the way, you can do simple joins in Airtable by using the "lookup" and "rollup" field types, but I agree that it is relatively limited in that respect.
Echoing some of the other comments, I think it would be more interesting to not just see a single avatar climbing the problem, but to see many possible approaches to the same problem, even for climbers with the same body type. This way, even skilled climbers that are stuck on a problem can consider alternate beta/techniques that they may find easier to execute.