Hacker News Reader

It's simple. For programmers, code is king. For scientists, data is king. Code can be recreated. Data is irreplaceable, so that's what is important, along with method.

View on HN

Data depends on the code. You can't write neutrino arrival time to file on hard disk without some code in between the equipment and the file. That code can be wrong, too.

Some code has to be trusted, and scientists can't check every assumption every time, so I don't blame them. But why don't they allow others to check the code? It's the opposite of scientific method.

Perhaps an electrician should ask to check all the solder joints on all the cables?

How is that any different from a random programmer assuming the physicists are incompetent and presuming that what is really necessary is a code review?

If an electrician offered to check them for free, in his free time, why should they refuse?

EDIT: publishing code don't require dismantling equipment. It's not my fault electrician isn't very good analogy.

Because it would probably require dismantling vast amounts of equipment, and it would probably be detectable in the data anyway.

EDIT: True, not a great analogy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com