<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Jupyter on bocklund.io</title>
		<link>https://bocklund.io/tags/jupyter/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Jupyter on bocklund.io</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-us</language>
		
		
		
			<copyright>Brandon Bocklund</copyright>
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://bocklund.io/tags/jupyter/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Why Jupyter Notebooks Won&#39;t Replace Academic Papers</title>
				<link>https://bocklund.io/jupyter-notebooks-papers/</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid>https://bocklund.io/jupyter-notebooks-papers/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Recently there has been some buzz around Jupyter Notebooks in science, especially in light of the LIGO team sharing their &lt;a href=&#34;https://losc.ligo.org/tutorials/&#34;&gt;detection and analysis of gravitational waves&lt;/a&gt; in Jupyter Notebooks. Others have claimed that Jupyter Notebooks will &lt;a href=&#34;https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/&#34;&gt;render traditional academic journal articles obsolete&lt;/a&gt;. The notebook or literate programming format improves on the reproducibility and disseminating of scientific work, however several key factors limit the notebook as a way to communicate science. In the article, I&#39;ll touch on these issues and explain why I believe that the current model of sharing computational science is here to stay.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
