I've been using pedalboard to manipulate voices for https://github.com/jason-kane/coh_npc_voices/ (TTS for game characters) and it is a very easy library to use/integrate. Kudos to the Spotify team.
If you want to write javascript, use javascript. There are ways to get what you're asking for depending on your use case. types.SimpleNamespace in the standard library provides one approach.
"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." (zen of python)
I do agree that python logging is a weak point. It is too easy to do it wrong -- particularly when you are a few modules deep.
Two reasons seem obvious. F-strings are relatively new -- the code is maturing and the edge cases are being filled in. Second, everyone can't be working on the GIL and start-up times. There is a tipping point at a relatively low head count where adding developers decreases productivity.
Is it reasonable to assume that the wealthiest people are more interested in optimizing society for what is best for the country as a whole or optimizing it so they can acquire more wealth/power? How often are those two possible optimizations in conflict?
I think it is an unpopular opinion for two primary reasons. There are inherent conflicts of interest. Being good at one thing (often being really good at being born with the right parents) does not necessarily correlate with decision making on behalf of society at large.
Add a category for what they are famous for? willsmith with a blue checkmark and "Podcaster" compared to will_smith with a blue checkmark and "Assaulted Chris Rock"?
Perhaps not a popular opinion, but the overwhelming majority of "gifted" kids seem to be near the middle of the bell curve with parents that are convinced little George is the next Einstein.
It is kind of fascinating since it does seem plausible that treating a child as gifted with high expectations and then providing focused, advanced instruction may be a self-fulfilling sort of situation.
I used to think "gifted" implies there is some natural high intelligence, where in reality its the children of well educated and/or motivated parents. Honestly now I think both benefits from segregated education so I dont really care about the distinction.
I have thought that selection for "giftedness" in young children is multi-factored with a combination of "exposure" and innate aptitude and curiosity of the child at the very least.
If you take "exposure" to mean the child has been introduced to a multitude of concepts and experiences both at their age-appropriate levels and grades above, the conjectured distribution starts to make sense. Wealthy children or those of highly educated parents tend to have incredibly high "exposure" increasing their representation in gifted programs. Those not from such a background will necessarily need to be highly curious and/or have high innate aptitude.
For the lower grades, gifted kids regardless of background will be in the upper decile of scores. As they grow older and "exposure" differences across the entire population minimize, those who were gifted only due to "exposure" will fall to the middle of the curve. Those with high curiosity/aptitude will continue to be in the upper decile, with those who had early and continued high exposure (usually a result of wealth or parent motivation) in the top percentile.
To your point, if you believe the goal should be to meet children where they are and advance them, this model isn't horrible. What it does point out is that there may be a fair amount of top percentile talent that is unrealized due to lack of "exposure" and resources.
