> 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 publi

> 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.