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
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.
Certainly, citations simply _aren't_ a good measure. It's pretty standard on hiring committees to have discussions of highly-cited duds, and low-cited gems. Citations are certainly _interesting_ to consider, but high (or low) citation in itself means nothing.
Citations are better simply because they are reasonably correlated with underlying merit and they are not a almost zero-information binary measure. If you draw a sample of 10k scientists, you will hardly ever get a single Nobelist; their citation-counts will still be useful.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
