> No one here could understand how to combine rudimentary image processing in such a way as to track a moving object over time? You make it sound easy, I don't

> No one here could understand how to combine rudimentary image processing in such a way as to track a moving object over time? You make it sound easy, I don't know why those 10 authors even wasted their time publishing this. It reminds me of a joke about getting grants, you show someone your proposal and they'll tell you it's a bad idea and will never work, you show them your work after a few years and they'll tell you the results are obvious and everyone already knew. I didn't tell him it's impossible, I said it requires a lot of work beyond scripting and specifically listed some of the aspects of the work that are easier to get into. Of course they could get a job doing it, that would involve spending 8 hours a day working on the topic and doing all the things I described. You word it like you're disagreeing with me but go on to list skill after skill that's required to actually achieve this. A bachelor of science alone is three years of studies, data science and image processing are very specialized scientific skill-sets that take a long time to acquire. I've seen plenty of people take a 6-months bootcamp who are barely able to manipulate a matrix at the end. Knowing which datasets and problems to work on requires a scientific culture which you acquire by reading the literature, not just googling. Combining all these skills into an idea that results into a quality publishable scientific output is a job and it requires as much work as any job does. By all means, let people do the work and contribute if it's interesting to them, but everyone here feels the same way when we see a paper come through here in which they "just" combine some Hough transforms and some observations "oh I could have done that." It doesn't work that way.