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
One reason I always bristle when I see some study or another on Nobelists as a measure of great scientific accomplishment. How can one read all the errors and omissions (eg https://www.nature.com/news/close-but-no-nobel-the-scientists-who-never-won-1.20781 … ) and take it as the ne plus ultra? So many better measures. Like citation counts.
Evidence that citation counts are a better measure? (That's a very unexpected assertion from my point of view.)
If you look at the list of bad Nobels, think about the censoring from deaths, the many-nominated-but-not-winners etc, a large fractions of Nobels should've been awarded to other people. Plus the sampling error is *massive* due small n: Most 'cells' are just empty. Terrible.
Strange, from my point of view. I looked in depth at the lists recently, and was surprised by how good the discovery / Laureate selection was, especially the recent prizes in Physics (where I can best judge). There are errors, but I thought it was surprisingly good.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
