Skip to main content

PyCon 2013 Posts I want to see

PyCon 2013 will be my third PyCon, and I'm walking into it with a better idea what I'm hoping for than my first two. Here is my shortlist for talk hopes.

  • Python inside Government
    Are any federal, state, or local governments using Python internally? In any important or large ways? Maybe at the national archives or the library of congress? I want to know about these things! Does the IRS crunch my taxes with Python?

  • Python and Big Data
    Working with large datasets fascinates me, probably because I don't get the opportunity to do so. I'd love to see where Python is being used to crunch big datasets. I wonder if gets used in any pipelines in processing results from CERN? Or maybe diagnosing medical tests?
  • Python close to the wire, embedded or working with wire protocols
    Using Python in mobile devices, embedded devices, or implementing binary protocols on the wire that need to work fast and with low latency? These are things people often don't think Python does well, so prove them wrong.
  • Python in movies
    Pixar, Disney, I know you guys are out there! Is python used in stages of the pipeline to make all those 3D movies I take my kids to see?
  • Community-centric talks, please!
    These are personally interesting to me, because I want to build community. I want to learn from more people who are great at it.
If you can give any of these talks, or any talk at all, submit your proposal for PyCon 2013!

Comments

pydanny said…
Unfortunately, you won't see Disney or Pixar developers speaking at conferences. Because of creative controls Disney puts on it's staff so they don't blow open the plots of movies that pay for a thousand people at a time, they heavily restrict their speaking engagements.

This also might be the case for Dreamworks and various American effect companies, but I'm not certain. From my experiences at PyCon New Zealand, I do believe WETA digital gives it's developers a lot of freedom.

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful

Introduction I’m coming to an opinion of Javascript module loaders that is profoundly negative and I’d like to express why I think they are, generally, a bad idea. However, I do think they have a place, which I’ll get to at the end. Now, I understand I might be in the minority here. Between the competing specifications of CommonJS and AMD modules, loader systems like RequireJS or the (honestly really awesome) Google Module Server, and the huge cultural influence of Node on the Javascript world, you’d be hard pressed to argue against Javascript modules these days. Scripts are old hat, too stupid, too inflexible. Everyone knows that and no one would make an argument in their favor, right? I’m going to step out on a limb and say “Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful” and I know the baggage involved with declaring something “Considered Harmful”. I mean every ounce of context that phrase carries with it, and I hope I can persuade you. Harm #1: Confused Debuggers