There is one practical uncertainty action that can be taken: I mostly get my forecast from a bookmark on weather.gov, and the "area forecast discussion" is one

There is one practical uncertainty action that can be taken: I mostly get my forecast from a bookmark on weather.gov, and the "area forecast discussion" is one more click away. The technical discussion isn't any more complicated than sportscasting news once you get used to it, but that stuff doesn't matter, the important part is to read for "FORECAST CONFIDENCE IS HIGH." and "MODELS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT WITH" at which point you can pretty much trust the forecast for that time period, and if the textual commentary is all what wikipedia calls weasel word phrases like "SHOWING SOME DIFFERENCES" or "BUT MAY NEED TO BE RAISED IN LATER FORECASTS IF MODELS REMAIN CONSISTENT" means you need to check back in half a day or so, till they firm up a bit. The only verbal commentary you'll get in mass media reporting is how great lasagna recipes sound and how weather will impact the local ball team, which sucks. If AFDs could be a little more formalized by date, you could do automated textual analysis pretty trivially and produce an honest forecast. Sometimes weather guys can give you an accurate forecast for next thursday and sometimes they can't, but the monkey in the street DEMANDS some answer for next thursday, even if there really isn't one, even if it makes the weather guy look dumb. An interesting startup-ish idea would be a mostly automated honest weather report app where days when the best scientific minds output a question mark, are displayed as a question mark instead of just makin stuff up. It would be a nice difficult problem, sounds all startup-py to me.