15 ms·

> By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking t

> By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking that same data bring very little to the table. Huh? Did you even look at the links I provided above? They are literally what your talking about. One is a free government run website that any person can use to get a weather forecast, the other is a free government run website where any person can download raw weather data and use any way they like. So no intermediates or companies required.

Retric 6y ago
> They are literally what your talking about. No. The second link isn’t something 99.9% of the general public will directly access. So in terms of directly communicating with the public without intermediaries it’s again useless to 99.9% of the population. The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies.
- 2trill2spill 6y ago
  > The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. So you admit that forecast.weather.gov is usable to the general public, but because it "doesn't maximize views" its some how invalidated? You said above that the public shouldn't need to use an intermediary to get a weather forecast and that's exactly what forecast.weather.gov is. And not only that but its faster and better than the for profit apps such as Accuweather, Weather.com, Weather Underground, etc. > This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies. 3% of a multi billion dollar budget is a lot of money also why would they waste money on a "several clean apps" as you put it when they already have a working weather forecasting app and that money could be used to address issues like the bandwidth one described in the article above, or updating weather models? It sounds like you just want a fancy new app even though they already have a working one.
  - Retric 6y ago
    > It sounds like you just want a fancy new app First I suggested these companies should be paying for API access. Alternatively, one app per device is multiple apps. It’s not about making weather.gov outcompete private companies, it’s about getting value for taxpayer money. People shouldn’t be watching adds or paying for apps that simply show them data they already paid for. Hell their API’s are providing a longer forecast than the actual website. That’s silly.
    - 2trill2spill 6y ago
      > Hell their API’s are providing a longer forecast than the actual website. That’s silly. forecast.weather.gov doesn't show longer than 7 day forecasts because forecasts beyond 7 days are not very accurate[1]. So why show something that has a 50% chance of being wrong? [1]: https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/ https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/

Retric 6y ago

> They are literally what your talking about. No. The second link isn’t something 99.9% of the general public will directly access. So in terms of directly communicating with the public without intermediaries it’s again useless to 99.9% of the population. The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies.

2trill2spill 6y ago
> The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. So you admit that forecast.weather.gov is usable to the general public, but because it "doesn't maximize views" its some how invalidated? You said above that the public shouldn't need to use an intermediary to get a weather forecast and that's exactly what forecast.weather.gov is. And not only that but its faster and better than the for profit apps such as Accuweather, Weather.com, Weather Underground, etc. > This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies. 3% of a multi billion dollar budget is a lot of money also why would they waste money on a "several clean apps" as you put it when they already have a working weather forecasting app and that money could be used to address issues like the bandwidth one described in the article above, or updating weather models? It sounds like you just want a fancy new app even though they already have a working one.
- Retric 6y ago
  > It sounds like you just want a fancy new app First I suggested these companies should be paying for API access. Alternatively, one app per device is multiple apps. It’s not about making weather.gov outcompete private companies, it’s about getting value for taxpayer money. People shouldn’t be watching adds or paying for apps that simply show them data they already paid for. Hell their API’s are providing a longer forecast than the actual website. That’s silly.
  - 2trill2spill 6y ago
    > Hell their API’s are providing a longer forecast than the actual website. That’s silly. forecast.weather.gov doesn't show longer than 7 day forecasts because forecasts beyond 7 days are not very accurate[1]. So why show something that has a 50% chance of being wrong? [1]: https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/ https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/