Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why do you collect any data??

There are like, billions of internet-connected barometers in the world that are not used in weather models. I don’t know if Acme has any of that in mind, but there is plenty of good reason for a weather app to collect data from phones. I know @counters may disagree with me, but I believe there are opportunities to improve short term forecast accuracy using data collected from phones.

Also, pretty much every day, all the apps and all the sites will tell me the incorrect current conditions at my location, much less the forecast. It’s 2026 damnit. Why doesn’t my phone know what the weather is outside right now?

I haven’t got the app yet, but I plan on it (gotta upgrade iOS first I think). Acme seems to have a lot of ideas I agree with, so, definitely following this.

One more thing. Weather apps have not been “solved”. Not even close. They all suck, there’s billions in untapped opportunity, and a stale existing market of bad solutions. People die all the time from severe weather. There is so much more work to be done in forecast accuracy and communication.

> I believe there are opportunities to improve short term forecast accuracy using data collected from phones.

Alright, fair point. That could be a reasonable use case.

But judging by their advertised "Community reports" feature, Acme doesn't seem to be doing this. And even if they did, this feature should be opt-in, and their privacy policy should only apply for those users.

> Also, pretty much every day, all the apps and all the sites will tell me the incorrect current conditions at my location, much less the forecast. It’s 2026 damnit. Why doesn’t my phone know what the weather is outside right now?

Have you tried looking out the window? What do you need hyper-local and minute-accurate forecasts for? If you need to know accurate current conditions get a thermometer and barometer. If you want it on your smartphone, then the app could show you live readings from your device, without sending the data anywhere.

Weather forecasts have always been an inexact science, and likely always will be. Our models have gotten better over time, and at this point I think that they're good enough. I only need to know the general temperature and likelihood of certain weather events a few days in advance, at most. If there's a chance of rain, I carry an umbrella just in case. If it's going to be cold, I pack a jacket.

Highly accurate weather prediction doesn't solve any practical problem for the average person. Hyping it up like it does only serves as marketing for companies that want to build a profitable business around it.

After thinking more about this, I don't think smartphones would even be good sources of ambient data that could improve forecasts.

Smartphones are personal computers. They spend most of their time in pockets and controlled indoor environments. This ambient data is of no use to anyone, which is why there's still a market for home weather stations, whose sensors are typically placed outside.

The barometer data is for sure noisy, and must be cleaned and quality controlled. But that is possible to do, has been for 10 years now (there are published papers and demo apps that can do it). For one, rate of change of atmospheric pressure is pretty much the same inside as out, your main challenge for the raw value to be correct is user elevation. That can be corrected in quality control as well.

Plenty of work has been done on this front, and it can be demonstrated that you can assimilate the smartphone pressures into weather models and get some good results. It is hard, of course, and I’m not sure personally how much better the forecasts get. But it’s absolutely possible.

> Weather forecasts have always been an inexact science

Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constraints.

And yes - I assume that this is what you mean by "an inexact science." But still in 2026 I regularly meet people who think that weather forecasting is the same as astrology, completely ignorant of massive amount of physical scientific understanding that goes into it.

> Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constraints.

It's "extremely exact" but our models are not good enough. So... inexact?

The reality is that we don't have the technology to model the physical world with extreme accuracy. If we did, we would be able to predict the future, and not just weather events. The world's most powerful supercomputers can model atmospheric conditions pretty well, and they've certainly improved over time, but there are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.

This is why I think that ~90% accuracy for a few days in advance[1] is good enough for most people. A smartphone app won't miraculously make this better, no matter how pretty or "fun" it is.

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/weather-forecasts

> It's "extremely exact" but our models are not good enough. So... inexact?

That's not the common way that the phrase "inexact science" is used. All modeling involves approximations at some levels, but you wouldn't turn around and call it "inexact science."

> ... but there are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.

Such as... ?

This is the problem with throwing away colloquialisms like "inexact science." What, specifically, is a "variable" that is unaccounted for that would unlock improved forecast accuracy or to push thresholds closer to the predictability limits?

> This is why I think that ~90% accuracy for a few days in advance[1] is good enough for most people. A smartphone app won't miraculously make this better, no matter how pretty or "fun" it is.

I agree, which is why the other portions of your comment come off poorly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com