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
Thinking about this personally, I think it's challenging to know how thick my skin should be. Too thin, and I have no conviction as a writer. Too thick, and I can't accept any smart criticism. Systems need optimally thick/thin skin, too.
If you were doing math, you wouldn't face this question. If there's a mistake in a proof or calculation, then it's a mistake, and that's that. I don't see why writing has to be different. Maybe you can't quite reach the certainty of math, but you can strive to.
I think the move is to just be extremely upfront in your writing about your level of conviction. When you’re sure, write with conviction. When it’s more of a hypothesis just say that in the writing. When it’s more of a question, call it that. @slatestarcodex is a master at this.
I've been thinking about ways to do this more. I like SSC's confidence %s. I also think it's a nice experiment to ask "what if I'm exactly wrong?" and try to write the best argument from the opposite perspective. I tried to do that here, eg—>https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/just-small-shift-remote-work-could-change-everything/614980/ …
I think it's not just the question of the finished product. If you're trying to develop an idea or theory, you want to be sensitive to potential pitfalls early on. But you don't want fill in all the gaps or answer all criticisms at the start or you'll never get anywhere.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
