Update documentation + general maintenance

[HealthyPear]

Summary description

• simplified README (all info are stored in the docs) with updates from current auxiliary services
• added support for backup documentation on readthedocs (still no automatic notebook execution, though)
• added many more benchmarks
• updated all benchmarking results to the latest reference analysis

Requirements

• Upgrade calibration benchmarks #59
• Upgrade of DL2 production #77
• Towards using Pyirf #79
• Performance using Pyirf #83
• Upgrade all other notebooks and their docs version #76
• Use mamba to create virtual enviroment for the CI #101
• check that documentation is up-to-date for release v0.4.0

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

Review Jupyter notebook visual diffs & provide feedback on notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #62 (8a1bd70) into master (fa3d622) will increase coverage by 0.21%.
The diff coverage is 70.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #62      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.81%   37.03%   +0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          18       19       +1     
  Lines        1798     1801       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits          662      667       +5     
+ Misses       1136     1134       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
protopipe/perf/utils.py	24.52% <ø> (ø)
protopipe/scripts/__init__.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
protopipe/scripts/data_training.py	85.56% <33.33%> (ø)
protopipe/perf/temp.py	23.52% <50.00%> (-2.95%)	⬇️
protopipe/perf/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
protopipe/pipeline/event_preparer.py	69.34% <100.00%> (+0.90%)	⬆️
protopipe/pipeline/temp.py	81.15% <100.00%> (ø)
protopipe/pipeline/utils.py	50.64% <100.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
... and 1 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fa3d622...6078440. Read the comment docs.

[kosack]

we might want to look into later why this is different (not sure anyone has ever really tested the shower-max reco), but since the reconstructed event selection is also different, it's not too bad.

Reply via ReviewNB

[kosack]

some minor changes in the notebooks. Otherwise looks nice.

[kosack]

I can re-approve when you make the necessary doc updates