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
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.
Looking back to 2000 in Physics, every single prize and every single Laureate has a great case, AFAICT. There are other discoveries and people who could equally well be on the list - but there's no real errors. (Of course, there _are_ pending prizes.)
I think that often people lose sight of the fact that the Nobel is granted for a social achievement of a scientific advancement, i.e. to what extent does this discovery benefit humanity? It's the perception of the public that attributes personal recognition as the Nobel's goal.
You might reconsider if you were reminded of everyone who died and could see the nomination lists. Anyway, any measurement which returns False for 999,999 out of 1 million scientists and a dubious True for the last datapoint, is not a good measurement compared to continuous ones
Well, maybe. But the social context of physics is that people think a _lot_ about this in advance. So, yes, I'm aware of a lot of the people who missed out because they died, and while nominations aren't exactly public, there's a lot of gossip. The committee does a good job.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
