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
There's something funny too about how foundational papers often appear as end points in other investigations. Turing 1936 is, in some sense, an end point to a long and rather esoteric line of investigation about the foundations of mathematics.
Another interesting force is specialization. As funding for science & the number of scientists grows, there is naturally more specialization. The result is a narrowing in _who_ you're writing for (& resulting exclusion). People & papers get more specialized for systemic reasons.
To whatever extent specialized language offers a usable proxy for specialization, do you have an intuition as to whether jargon leads or lags substantive progress? And how you might identify when specialization is impeding progress?
On the first question: in healthy fields it seems coeval. In more fake fields it can all be theatre. I'm sure specialization always "impedes" progress, for suitable definition of impedes.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
