Cute title; I thought I was about to read a contrarian ecologist saying "a species that is so very specialized in its diet and finicky in its reproductive behavior doesn't deserve, evolutionarily speaking, to survive". (Seriously, it's seriously freakin' difficult to get pandas to reproduce in captivity). And while my knee-jerk reaction would be "maybe, but we should still preserve them because we can", I was prepared to see if the author had a serious argument to present.

Instead it's a cute bait-and-switch title, and the article tells you upfront that it's actually about the Python `pandas` library. Which I think I've encountered maybe once in my entire career (I'm not in the data-science field), so I don't have much meaningful to say about the article itself. I just want to commend the author on fooling me with the title. This is the kind of "clickbait" I can respect and actually wish there was a little bit more of sometimes. A nice chuckle, then a real article.

> Seriously, it's seriously freakin' difficult to get pandas to reproduce in captivity

It is impossible, and has been tried many times by many people, to reproduce Octopus vulgari in captivity. Their reproductive behaviour looks also quite weird for us (the mother always die). Yet they thrive in the wild unless over fished.

Apologies for not rewarding your trust ;)

Would be very interested to read an article on the literal interpretation of my title.

Also just wanted to say thank you for this comment - made my day :)

Yeah I wanted the controversial panda article. Can someone write that instead?