5 ms·
I don’t follow. I would rather the government manage the API, like what NOAA does/did.
by bumby 2mo ago
I don’t follow. I would rather the government manage the API, like what NOAA does/did.
- groundzeros2015 2mo agoSo then we are subsidizing Google’s outsized usage of that API?
- simonw 2mo agoIs this really an expensive problem to solve? Give Google a continuous feed of the weather data which they cache locally. I can't imagine that being a particularly expensive thing to operate - no need to reply to an API call from Google every time someone searches for "weather".
- groundzeros2015 2mo agoThat 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 2mo agoThe 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 2mo agoI agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.
- counters 2mo 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 2mo agoProject 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 2mo agoAnd that literally isn't happening.
- vel0city 2mo agoA 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 2mo agoThere 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.
- ImPostingOnHN 2mo agoSure, why not. No problem. That's a good example of how government open data can support both people and business.
- bumby 2mo agoAs long as it’s properly addressed to avoid abuse, I don’t have a problem with private companies and individual citizens both benefiting. You could easily put rate limits if you think it’s a major issue while still maintaining the free service for smaller users. I personally don’t like the privatization of profits while also maintaining the narrative that companies don’t benefit from public works.