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
On the institutional-populist spectrum I’m a mildly off center on populist side from back when that meant believing Wikipedia is marginally better than Encyclopedia Brittanica. I’ve held that position steady for 15 years, despite recent events.
It’s intriguing to see people with far less stake and history in expert institutional environments than me defending them way more strongly than I feel inclined to. 
It’s like when poor people rush to defend billionaires.
I’m still kinda enjoying the dividends of my time in the military-industrial-academic complex 10 years after leaving it. It’s like movie residuals. Doors still open for me because of my CV. But I don’t feel the need to defend the beast I still kinda live off.
But if you’ve never spent time in academia, R&D labs, think tanks etc. and still deify “experts” (many of whom have helped make your life worse), I’m inclined to suspect you’re looking for parental authority rather than intellectual leadership.
Experts are just regular people with a different job than yours. Just like in your job, they span the gamut from conscientious to apathetic, brilliant to incompetent, and honest to criminal. Treat expert institutions the same way you treat car dealerships. Eyes open, no worship.
A good heuristic is to sort 2 kinds of experts: those who deal in real variables (temperature, altitude, number of people) and those who deal in proxy variables (FAA ratings, classes of chemicals, safety levels). The former are vulnerable to incompetence, the latter to corruption
Learn to suspect people of the appropriate kinds of failure. It’s a start. Blanket suspicion and blanket trust are both equally lazy. You can get even more refined. Engineers and biologists don’t fail the same way for eg. It’s more a detective story than inquisition.
Conspiracy theories have a clear tell: they don’t have targeted suspicions. Instead it’s a red string theory implicating everybody. That indiscriminate pattern of suspicion tells me you don’t understand enough to suspect specific people of specific things.
Hercule Poirot used to scold Hastings for indiscriminately suspecting everybody in turn for no rhyme or reason, but also praise his imagination in doing so. He himself would systematically zoom in on narrower, justified suspicions.
There's the class you're a part of now and the class even some small part of you aspires to be accepted by.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
