21 karma · joined May 18, 2014
Agreed. Independent thought usually leads to one being moderate when that person is already living a comfortable life.
LinkedIn provides similar access, as well as Twitter, and other social networks.
There are literally hundreds of companies that provide functionality similar to Buffer and Hootsuite, including scheduling for future publishing which is not forbidden at all. (Source: I run one of these services.)
The confusion may arise because until 2021 it wasn't possible to publish directly to Instagram. Before that only some big players like Hootsuite and Buffer had direct access to the publishing api, and some less than reputable companies used unsanctioned hacks to schedule Instagram content. But in 2021 Instagram opened their publishing api to other third party apps.
[0] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/pages/publishing/
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-api/guides/co...
Imagine in the Dunning-Kruger chart the second plot (perceived ability) was a horizontal line at 70, which is not true but not far off from the real results. Now imagine I told you "did you know that, regardless of their actual score, everyone thought they got a 70?" That's a surprising fact.
1p: The mathematics that allow physicists to reconstruct the structure of matter is fascinating.
2p: The standard model, though ugly, is still undefeated (with examples).
3p: The LHC hasn't led to the discovery of new particles, and physicists are in denial (with examples and a link).
4p: There is a worrying trend about the failure to learn from failure.
5p: The trust in naturalness/beauty/simplicity to guide the search for a unified model is not working.
6p: Turns out "naturalness" is philosophical, not scientific.
7p: Physicists are opportunistic, so they'll try to justify a larger collider to try to discover new particles.
8p: The nightmare scenario: no new particles discovered with the LHC, so physicists have no guidance to continue.
9p: We've been doing it wrong with the use of naturalness as guidance. You can't trust the judgement of scientists when their future funding depends on continuing working in this direction.
So paragraphs 1 through 7 do offer a good background to support his thesis that "naturalness as guidance" is wrongheaded, which is the real point of the article. If you only read the last paragraphs his thesis sounds shaky and arbitrary.