docs: Update the installation guide with anaconda in README.md, specified the Python version due to psycopg2 compatibility problem.

[hxuaj]

Update the installation guide with anaconda, specified the Python version due to psycopg2 problem mentioned in https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio/issues/3907.

PR fulfills these requirements

• [ ] Commit message(s) and PR title follows the format [fix|feat|ci|chore|doc]: TICKET-ID: Short description of change made ex. fix: DEV-XXXX: Removed inconsistent code usage causing intermittent errors
• [ ] Tests for the changes have been added/updated (for bug fixes/features)
• [ ] Docs have been added/updated (for bug fixes/features)
• [ ] Best efforts were made to ensure docs/code are concise and coherent (checked for spelling/grammatical errors, commented out code, debug logs etc.)
• [ ] Self-reviewed and ran all changes on a local instance (for bug fixes/features)

Change has impacts in these area(s)

(check all that apply)

• [ ] Product design
• [ ] Backend (Database)
• [ ] Backend (API)
• [ ] Frontend

Describe the reason for change

(link to issue, supportive screenshots etc.) By following the official installation guide with anaconda, I've encontered the same problem as in https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio/issues/3907. The root cause is that w/o specifying the python version, conda will install the latest python automatically, while LS supports up to Python 3.9 when installing by pip. So this pull request modifies the install guide with anaconda in README.md.

What does this fix?

(if this is a bug fix)

What is the new behavior?

(if this is a breaking or feature change)

What is the current behavior?

(if this is a breaking or feature change) More concise install steps with anaconda in LS official installation guide.

What libraries were added/updated?

(list all with version changes) README.md

Does this change affect performance?

(if so describe the impacts positive or negative) No.

Does this change affect security?

(if so describe the impacts positive or negative) No.

What alternative approaches were there?

(briefly list any if applicable)

What feature flags were used to cover this change?

(briefly list any if applicable)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

(check only one)

• [ ] Yes, and covered entirely by feature flag(s)
• [ ] Yes, and covered partially by feature flag(s)
• [x] No
• [ ] Not sure (briefly explain the situation below)

What level of testing was included in the change?

(check all that apply)

• [ ] e2e
• [ ] integration
• [ ] unit

Which logical domain(s) does this change affect?

(for bug fixes/features, be as precise as possible. ex. Authentication, Annotation History, Review Stream etc.)

[netlify[bot]]

👷 Deploy request for label-studio-docs-new-theme pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5659a06ee636ea9759047a5f335813b9ae941c6c

[netlify[bot]]

👷 Deploy request for heartex-docs pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5659a06ee636ea9759047a5f335813b9ae941c6c

[erinmikailstaples]

Hey @hxuaj — thanks for the update here — setting it up for review and will get back to you ASAP! :)

[github-actions[bot]]

This PR is stale because it has been open 172 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[robot-ci-heartex]

This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[robot-ci-heartex]

This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[robot-ci-heartex]

This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 10 days with no activity.