3 ms·

That sounds like the arrangement you said we have. The government provides data to private companies who then mass distribute it in various forms because those

by groundzeros2015 3mo ago

That sounds like the arrangement you said we have. The government provides data to private companies who then mass distribute it in various forms because those costs and needs vary.

crote 3mo ago
The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". They get it for free from the government. They offer it as a paid service to the general public. Then they try to ban the government from giving it away for free to any potential competition.
- groundzeros2015 3mo ago
  I agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.
- counters 3mo ago
  > The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". In general, they aren't. The sole example I can think of that even skirts with this was specifically an attempt by AccuWeather in the 2000's, coordinating with then-Senator Rick Santorum's office. And that was universally decried by the entire weather enterprise.
  - vel0city 3mo ago
    Project 2025 called for downsizing the weather service and have them focus on just data gathering and it should "fully commercialize its forecasting operations". https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
    - counters 3mo ago
      And that literally isn't happening.
      - vel0city 3mo ago
        A lot of the recommendations for NOAA cuts in Project 2025 have been happening, so it's probably more of a "hasn't happened yet" kind of thing. There's little reason to believe that isn't still the goal.
        counters 3mo ago
        There have been no signs whatsoever that these types of changes would be happening. The only noticeable changes at NOAA - and anyone who works in the world of meteorology in the United States - have been a doubling down on existing, vetted programs for commercial data acquisition (all of which target supplemental capability, not backbone replacement) and a doubling down on existing modeling R&D (namely the re-up of EPIC and the commitment to the UFS). NOAA is helmed by veterans of the weather enterprise. Do you see the American Meteorological Society issuing statements decrying the commercialization of the NWS or NOAA? Honestly, because NOAA is a Department of Commerce agency and the head of that cabinet department - Lutnick - has no interest whatsoever in weather or climate, there really isn't any ongoing concern that NOAA will be massively torn apart.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
    - groundzeros2015 3mo ago
      This is a conspiracy theory.
      - vel0city 3mo ago
        How so? They've already implemented over half of the policies suggested in it. https://www.project2025.observer/en https://www.project2025.observer/en As mentioned they've already implemented many of the recommendations related to NOAA in the document. If anything they've gone even further in many of the cuts as they've cut the budgets so much a lot of balloon launches haven't happened vastly reducing the ground truth needed to keep models and forecasts accurate. Instead, they've moved such things to... drumroll...private corporations. https://www.wired.com/story/private-companies-step-up-to-gather-weather-data-for-noaa-as-staffing-cuts-hobble-agency-forecasting/ https://www.wired.com/story/private-companies-step-up-to-gat... Tell me again how this is conspiracy theory?

That sounds like the arrangement you said we have. The government provides data to private companies who then mass distribute it in various forms because those costs and needs vary.

crote 3mo ago

The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". They get it for free from the government. They offer it as a paid service to the general public. Then they try to ban the government from giving it away for free to any potential competition.

groundzeros2015 3mo ago
I agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.
counters 3mo ago
> The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". In general, they aren't. The sole example I can think of that even skirts with this was specifically an attempt by AccuWeather in the 2000's, coordinating with then-Senator Rick Santorum's office. And that was universally decried by the entire weather enterprise.
- vel0city 3mo ago
  Project 2025 called for downsizing the weather service and have them focus on just data gathering and it should "fully commercialize its forecasting operations". https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
  - counters 3mo ago
    And that literally isn't happening.
    - vel0city 3mo ago
      A lot of the recommendations for NOAA cuts in Project 2025 have been happening, so it's probably more of a "hasn't happened yet" kind of thing. There's little reason to believe that isn't still the goal.
      - counters 3mo ago
        There have been no signs whatsoever that these types of changes would be happening. The only noticeable changes at NOAA - and anyone who works in the world of meteorology in the United States - have been a doubling down on existing, vetted programs for commercial data acquisition (all of which target supplemental capability, not backbone replacement) and a doubling down on existing modeling R&D (namely the re-up of EPIC and the commitment to the UFS). NOAA is helmed by veterans of the weather enterprise. Do you see the American Meteorological Society issuing statements decrying the commercialization of the NWS or NOAA? Honestly, because NOAA is a Department of Commerce agency and the head of that cabinet department - Lutnick - has no interest whatsoever in weather or climate, there really isn't any ongoing concern that NOAA will be massively torn apart.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - groundzeros2015 3mo ago
    This is a conspiracy theory.
    - vel0city 3mo ago
      How so? They've already implemented over half of the policies suggested in it. https://www.project2025.observer/en https://www.project2025.observer/en As mentioned they've already implemented many of the recommendations related to NOAA in the document. If anything they've gone even further in many of the cuts as they've cut the budgets so much a lot of balloon launches haven't happened vastly reducing the ground truth needed to keep models and forecasts accurate. Instead, they've moved such things to... drumroll...private corporations. https://www.wired.com/story/private-companies-step-up-to-gather-weather-data-for-noaa-as-staffing-cuts-hobble-agency-forecasting/ https://www.wired.com/story/private-companies-step-up-to-gat... Tell me again how this is conspiracy theory?