[dllthomas]

I think being able to re-run code with a paper is great, but I think we should be sure to distinguish it from scientific replication.

When replicating physics or chemistry, you build fresh the relevant apparatus, demonstrating that the paper has sufficiently communicated the ideas and that the result is robust to the noise introduced not just by that "random state" you discuss but also to the variations from a trip through human communication.

I acknowledge that this is substantially an aside, but it's something I like to surface from time to time and this seemed a reasonable opportunity.