← Feed

Posts

• Post #3633540

  New blog post: "Conviviality in computational science" https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2026/07/06/conviviality.html "Conviviality matters for science for multiple reasons. One of them is epistemic: if you want to derive knowledge from your work, you need to know exactly what you are doing, and that includes a detailed understanding of your tools."

• Post #2519572

  RE: https://mastodon.social/@gvwilson/116505775795882237 An interesting view on software use in science. What this means is - gain in efficiency: less software to maintain, less friction in collaborations, etc. - fewer but more critical points of failure - potentially offset by improvements in funding and governance, but I am probably dreaming - reduced epistemic diversity: the chosen few software packages determine which scientific methods become consensual

• Post #2177940

  "HyperDoc - a hypermedia substrate for knowledge workers" My contribution to yesterday's "Substrates 2026" workshop. http://hyperdoc.wiki.khinsen.net/view/welcome-visitors/view/substrates-2026-workshop/view/hyperdoc---a-hypermedia-substrate-for-knowledge-workers

• Post #2006219

  Interesting remark by @k9ox in the FedWiki Matrix room: "I don't mind wiki being unreliable but I want to know why it isn't." This looks like a good framing for reproducibility issues in science as well. If something is not reproducible but it is generally understood why, that's OK - not nice, perhaps, but it's possible to work around it. But if you can't reproduce a result that everybody believes to be reproducible, that's a pro...

• Post #1825034

  RE: https://hachyderm.io/@kristoff/116488267530388091 All I knew about Zig before reading this post is that it's a programming language in the C/C++/Rust subspace. I have no opinion at all about the language. But this post almost makes me want to use it, just because of its credible long-time plan to become and remain community-managed technology.

• Post #1507321

  Lettre ouverte : Arrêtons l’adoption naïve des technologies de l’IA dans le milieu universitaire https://aeporreca.org/blog/lettre-ouverte-adoption-ia/ Traduction française d'une lettre ouverte internationale (par @olivia et al.) que vous pouvez signer dans l'original en anglais ici; https://openletter.earth/open-letter-stop-the-uncritical-adoption-of-ai-technologies-in-academia-b65bba1e

• Post #1092410

  You can now sign up for the next session of the MOOC "Reproducible Research II: Practices and tools for managing computations and data" which opens on May 5th. https://www.fun-mooc.fr/en/courses/reproducible-research-ii-practices-and-tools-for-managing-comput/

• Post #1072441

  "Even more troublingly, other researchers say, the fake papers were then cited in peer-reviewed literature. Osmanovic Thunström says this suggests that some researchers are relying on AI-generated references without reading the underlying papers." Does this still surprise anyone? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01100-y

• Post #1072439

  Formation "Construction et animation d'une communauté autour du développement d'un logiciel libre" 30 juin - 2 juillet à Autrans La formation est ouverte et gratuite à tous les membres des laboratoires de recherche académique en France. https://animeopensource.sciencesconf.org/

• Post #942394

  "Reliable research in the social and behavioural and sciences" A collection of four (paywalled) articles on reproducibility and replicability in the April 2 issue of Nature: https://www.nature.com/collections/idajfifcfg

• Post #942393

  "Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?" http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00969-z After lots of technicalities: "In some cases, hallucinated citations might serve as a sign that the entire paper is fabricated, whether by an individual or a paper mill, a business that sells authorship slots. But the extent to which fabricated papers are contributing to the fake-citation problem is unclear."