You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled difference, it's just a number, & it's asking to (eventually) have similar problems. Better solutions are needed, based on a different experimental paradigm.https://twitter.com/JPdeRuiter/status/1046058507500441601 …
Well, all solutions are stopgap solutions. :)
At 0.05 a human can fudge things around 20ish times to get a result. At 0.005, one would have to write explicit computer code to p-hack, which takes things ethically from grey to black, and can be punished. It's a computationally complexity difference.
I think it could reasonably be argued to be more than that, because it raises the cost of certain types of bad science much more than the cost of good science, so it should create a lot of circumstances under which the most economically viable strategy is now better science.
It's not a *great* solution for sure, but changing incentives is more than just a stopgap solution. The real questions are a) does this raise the cost of doing good science too much (it depends.) b) does this make us less likely to adopt a better solution (probably not?)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
