Or, ask it to make a plan, and it makes a good plan! It explicitly notes how validation is to take place on each stage!
And then does every stage without running any of the validation. It's your agent's plan, it should probably be generated in a way that your own agent can follow it.
Besides the problem caused by reflections and by the fact that unless you are very close to the transmitter you do not receive a direct wave but one reflected from the ionosphere, there is an additional difficulty.
Antennas with high directivity, which are needed for accurate triangulation, must be very big in the shortwave range (wavelength from 100 meter to 10 meter). Moreover, if they are too big it would be difficult to move them, to be able to measure an angle.
So traditional triangulation is inaccurate in this frequency range.
With modern technologies, using highly accurate synchronized clocks, one could distribute shortwave antennas over a large area, to create a synthetic aperture array, enabling a precise triangulation. However this would be expensive. An amateur would certainly not have such a thing. I doubt that even a state would bother to build such a thing, because it would not be worthwhile.
While precise triangulation of a shortwave transmitter from far away is very difficult, such a transmitter would not be hard to find during a local search wherever it is placed, because there not only the direction, but also the intensity gradient of the signal would allow finding it.
Two receivers of the same signal may not be from the same proximate source. One could from the original antenna the other from a reflection. Both could be reflected but by different reflectors. Even if the proximate source was the same for both the receivers, triangulation might yield the location of a virtual image of the original source.
BTW I am just going by geometry and may be way off because radiowaves behave quite differently compared to visible light.
One might need effectively the inverse of beamforming to nail it.
It’s good-faith arbitrage. Until everyone automatically suspects everything to be LLM generated and there is zero trust, anyone doing this is eroding the good faith that lets them get away with it in the first place.
And spotting stuff in review! Sometimes it’s false positives but on several occasions I’ve spent ~15-30 minutes teaching-reviewing a PR in person, checked afterwards and it matched every one of the points.
The flood of Disney+ cancellations likely contributed to their decision to back down on Kimmel, kind of heartening to know we've still got some power over these mega corps.
It gets worse x2: the executor of the estate having signed up for Disney+ means the estate of the deceased loses the right to sue, despite the deceased having never signed up. Like a client being bound by all unrelated legal agreements their lawyer entered into.
(If I recall the details correct, it has been a while since I read into that case.)
It's all just games, they just want to win. Dollars are the overall points, but they're even willing to sacrifice some of those to win bigger cases more brutally.
Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be.
The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney".
This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Walt Disney World resort. If you died due to a severe allergic reaction at a normal restaurant in a normal shopping mall in Florida the mall owners would generally not be liable unless there's something else going on.
The theory that Disney is liable here is more than anything based on the *restaurant featuring on their app.* The EULA for *that app* would certainly be relevant to this argument.
Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. That is more than a bit of a stretch, especially for a free trial from years ago, and I'd be surprised (but IANAL) if such a theory would actually hold up in court. Still, on a spectrum from "person died due to maintenance failure on a Magic Kingdom ride" to "person died from going to a restaurant featured on a Disney+ program", if you're arguing that the Disney+ EULA is relevant, this is a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.
It's my belief the Disney+ EULA claim was just the lawyers doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" shtick (no pun intended). They knew it was likely to not hold up, but tried it anyway because, if it did, it helps future claims.
>Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be.
>Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant.
Well, you know, they also could have not done _that_. With it they deserve all the flak that they've got and more, simply because they resorted to a scummy tactic, whatever the reason.
Except that the theme park did present the restaurant as being part of the park, which makes it quite reasonable to hold the theme park responsible financially for the entire debacle.
If a chainsaw juggler on a cruise ship cuts my dad in half while he's sleeping on his deck chair, "That entertainer was not a direct employee of Royal Caribbean" will hold exactly zero water in determining liability.
There are very substantial differences between your chainsaw juggler scenario and the Disney one. Notably, the cruise ship is access controlled and your dad didn't actively engage with the chainsaw juggler.
To be clear, this isn't part of Magic Kingdom or one of the proper Disney theme parks. This is a shopping area, open to the public without admission.
For a closer scenario: the cruise ship docks at one of its stops for a day. The area around where the ship docks is owned by Royal Caribbean but open to the public. Most of the stores are privately owned and operated, leasing space from Royal Caribbean. One of those stores is a theater that runs a chainsaw juggling show. Royal Caribbean's website/app includes the full schedule of that theater and highlights that show as perfectly-safe-we-assure-you. Your dad attends that show and gets bisected.
The key point here, entirely not captured by your scenario: the theory making Disney plausibly liable is that Disney's own online services presented this restaurant and its menus which made the plaintiff believe that the restaurant was subject to Disney's allergy standards. It is not at all unreasonable to say that EULAs for those online services are relevant to this dispute.
And then does every stage without running any of the validation. It's your agent's plan, it should probably be generated in a way that your own agent can follow it.
reply