> well, he didn’t rigorously define how he derived the error bounds on crude position estimation or more correctly, he used an example and a diagram without ev

> well, he didn’t rigorously define how he derived the error bounds on crude position estimation or more correctly, he used an example and a diagram without every explaining how we should think about it. I think running into a nonsensical, unexplained diagram is a good heuristic for whether or not an article is worth reading — even if, in this case, it turns out the rest of the article is well-written.