So I wrote this thing that got an awful lot of comments, many telling me that I'm just plain wrong. I think it's impossible to respond comprehensively :). But here are some responses.
In that blog post, I argued that software shouldn't …
There are comments.
Update - I've written Yet Another blog post, More on scientific software on this topic. I think this blog post is a mess so you should read that one first ;).
This blog post was spurred by a simple question from Pauline Barmby on Twitter. My response didn't, ahem, quite fit in …
read moreThere are comments.
Here are some statistics from this year's applications to the NGS course. Briefly, this is a two-week workshop on sequence analysis at the command line and in the cloud.
The short version is that demand remains high; note that we admit only 24 applicants, so generally < 20%...
| Year | Number of … |
|---|
There are comments.
I'm reading Galileo's Middle Finger by Dr. Alice Dreger (@alicedreger), and it's fantastic. It's a paean to evidence-based popular discourse on scientific issues -- something I am passionate about -- and it's very well written.
I bought the book because I ran across Dr. Dreger's excellent and hilarious live-tweeting of her son's …
read moreThere are comments.
tl;dr? A while back I wrote that there are three uses of research software: replication, reproduction, and reuse. The world of computational science would be better off if people clearly delineated whether or not they wanted anyone else to reuse their software, and I think it's a massive mistake …
read moreThere are comments.