Honestly though, I don't feel like I need to be 100% robust in this. My key message wasn't "this tool is flawless", it was "it's really weird and entertaining to watch it do this, and it appears to be quite good at it". I think what I've published so far entirely supports that message.
I daresay that in this case, the content is interesting because it appears to be the actual thought process. However, if it is actually using EXIF data as you initially dismissed, then all of this is just a fiction. Which, I think, makes it dramatically less entertaining.
Like true crime - it's much less fun if it's not true.
(Or, if you like, "trust me, bro".)
I've updated my post several times based on feedback here and elsewhere already, and I showed my working at every step.
Can't please everyone.
My complaint is that you're saying "trust me" and that isn't transparent in the least.
Am I wrong?
"I have now proven to myself that the models really can guess locations from photographs to the point where I am willing to stake my credibility on their ability to do that."
The "trust me bro" was a lighthearted joke.
It managed to write a python program to extract the timezone offset and use that to narrow down there it was. Pretty crazy :).