shared links are different than RSS

The point of RSS is automation. RSS is an established standard¹ so that no human needs to keep revisiting a long list of vetted topical sources that regularly publish worthwhile content. With RSS, a computer can rapidly and flawlessly determine whether another computer offers new content. If available, the content itself can be automatically retrieved, too.

Human link sharing is different. When humans share links, those links are likely intermixed with irrelevant items like unsolicited opinions. The links may be about a wide range of uninteresting topics. Although link sharing distributes the work of revisiting valuable websites and flagging fresh information, the flaws of a manual procedure continue to apply. How reliable is the crowd at performing this task? As a unit, they're more reliable than one person, but I daresay that a program is better still.

RSS is for mechanizing the syndication of "publishing sources". I'd say that humans who share links are more accurately classified as additional publishing sources than as "John Henry competitors" to efficient RSS software. I'll concede that link sharing can be a more convenient answer than RSS to the question, "How do I obtain a simple list of interesting links to visit?" But RSS is superior if the question is, "How do I, a unique individual, follow the ongoing activity of every source in a list that I control?"

Shared links won't replace RSS for my needs. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of RSS. When a website shuts down its feeds due to "lack of interest", I'll gladly turn my attention elsewhere.

¹Ha! RSS is a standard in the sense that you pick whichever one you like.

model dependent realism

I read The Grand Design. I'm long acquainted with much of the history and physics therein, albeit at a conceptual not mathematical level. However, I was fascinated by the description of the entire universe as a Feynman path. I can't make any knowledgeable comments on that or the M-theory stuff, of course. I couldn't help wondering if the sections on renormalization and "negative energy" would've been easier to understand with the careful and hand-held inclusion of some undergraduate-level math. That's a hard balance to strike, though. Maybe I'll try some cross-referencing with the tome that's "heavy" in several senses of the word, The Road To Reality by Penrose. I doubt the two books share the same general opinions.

Since I'm monotonous, I'm obligated to compare the book's "model dependent realism" with my interpretation of philosophical Pragmatism. I noticed many similarities. In model dependent realism, humans perceive reality through the lens of a model. In Pragmatism, humans perceive reality through the lens of subjective elements like desire, focus, analysis, synthesis, theory-building, etc. In model dependent realism, humans select models for the sake of "convenience". In Pragmatism, the convenience of thoughts about reality is explicitly tied to how well the thoughts "work" for purposes. In model dependent realism, humans replace models as they compare the accuracy by experiment. In Pragmatism, humans adjust their knowledge of truth as they actively determine which individual truths are confirmed "in practice". Most infamously, in model dependent realism, an ultimate universal model of reality might simply be impossible, except as a quilted combination of an array of limited models. Just as infamously, in Pragmatism, truth isn't a standalone all-encompassing entity, except as an evolving collection of ideas whose two coauthors are the human and their whole environment.