495
US govt hiding top hurricane forecast model sparks outrage
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
495 points (96.1% liked)
News
23659 readers
3035 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It seems the outrage is over this part:
Which is, on the face of it, outrageous. American public pays for the modelling but isn't allowed to benefit from it because an insurance company wants to keep the data secret.
The public does benefit from it because the people who's jobs it is to protect the public have access to the data.
We're getting our monies worth, especially if you've paid attention to how accurate hurricane tracking and intensity models have become over the past 10+ years.
Sorry, did you mean to reply to another comment? There is no reflection whatsoever to the comment you are replying to.
Edit: As this comment has whooshed at least 6 people:
it is very very very obvious that the article tries to manufacture outrage over one prediction model that is not publicised but avalable to the agency.
I pointed out that there is one other, equally good model unrestricted and there are about 20 other models that are equally not listed as restricted. Again, the restriction refers to publicising, not to government usage.
I hope this helps the understanding of crapwittyname@lemm.ee and his friends as I don't think it makes sense to break this down simpler.
The above comment is more applicable to itself than to the comment to which it refers, weirdly. It's a sort of extra-ironic, self unaware recursion.
Edit: your edit doesn't fix anything. You claim the outrage is over nothing. I then explain what I think the outrage is over, you then claim that my explanation is somehow unrelated. You then edit, saying that people shouldn't be outraged, because of an opinion you have. I'm getting an aggressive vibe from the way you are writing, so maybe it's better not to engage with you, but at the same time I'm curious why this fairly dry, non divisive topic has you so vehement.