- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot reveal weather forecasts from a particularly accurate hurricane prediction model to the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.
The model at issue is called the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) Corrected Consensus Approach (HCCA). In 2023, it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).
2020 contract between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Post, requires NOAA to keep HCCA forecasts – which incorporate a proprietary technique from RenaissanceRe – secret for five years.
You must log in or register to comment.
Can we please stop with the privitization? It’s absolutely not been working out very well for the people.
Muwahahahaha!!! - Our corporate overlords, probably
But it makes so much money for corporations! Tax payer money is used for research and everything else that costs money, then we get a private company to just ‘commercialise’ it! Tax payers take on all the risk and investment, profits go straight to shareholders.
Then the private companies pay their CEO’s multiple times their corporate tax burden.
This is actually the opposite of privatization. The government is using private technology that they will be able to make public in 5 years.
they will be able to make public in 5 years.
That’s a bit late for a weather forecast.
Well they are taking something owned by a foreign company - i.e. owned by people who are not Americans - and creating a system that will help Americans.
I wish NOAA or NASA invented it, then we would have it now. But, in this case, private investment happened to be fastest.
Wishing is not much of a plan.
The actual alternative available to the US Government that would have prevented this angry response would have been to not even try to adapt this private technology.
Would that have been better?
It worked in high growth economy 50-70’, and boomers are stuck there.
Removed by mod
It worked for the people of this time, yes.
A deal penned under the Trump administration because of course it was. Government sold to the highest bidder.
I was wondering why this felt so gross
I was wondering if this came before or after sharpiegate.
Well that would explain why the “Sharpie line Modelling” outperformed local newscasters
/sDid you fact check this? +
This doesn’t sound so bad from the government’s perspective…
RenaissanceRe developed a piece of technology that the government wanted to use (for free) in their own hurricane model. The only way RenaissanceRe would allow this is if the government kept the models private for 5 years.
The government’s use of this data would help it to respond and prepare local governments for hurricanes. Keeping the data private for 5 years is the only way of getting it, so this is better than not having the data.
Maybe it’s a little shitty on RenaissanceRe‘s part, but it’s no different than healthcare companies keeping patents for a number of years knowing that their medicines could save lives if it were cheaper and more available.
Edit: Washington Post source
I didn’t see the “for free” part. Can you help?
From the original Washington post story
The agreement signed in 2020 by NOAA and the company enabled the agency to collaborate with the firm but does not allow the government to provide compensation. It states HCCA forecasts are “trade secrets and confidential information” that “shall not be publicly disclosed or disseminated” for a period of five years from the effective date of the agreement. The terms of the agreement were released to The Washington Post in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Thanks. I must have just missed it.
Well I can’t say how it works with software since my experience is only with hardware, but that’s not the way the government usually receives a product.
Usually the government puts out a Request for Proposal (RFP). Companies will respond with a proposal and the government chooses one. The product is developed and ultimately delivered to the government for it to use as it sees fit. If new technology is created during the development, the company providing the product can usually patent that technology.
It’s possible other models for this exist, but I’m not aware of any product the defense contractor I worked for ever telling the government how or where to use a product. On the other hand, I’m not aware of the government ever wanting to expose that knowledge either. Usually it’s the other way around. So it would be a non-issue.
But to me it makes no sense that the RESULTS of the model can’t be shared. The real important stuff is HOW the model works. I admit I did not read the article, only the piece at the bottom. Please disregard if this is based on false information.
In what you’re describing, the government pays for the software, then uses the software as they see fit. Probably includes service contracts that last for a year or so past dev completion.
Well, according to the Washington Post article, the government did not provide compensation for this. It seemed to me like this company developed this on its own and is allowing the government to use it to help people, but just wants 5 years of profiting off this before it goes public and is used by other private for profit weather companies.
Again, I’m not saying this is great, but the amount of rage in the comment section does not match what is actually happening.
All I said was that it was not the normal way. I’m not paying judgement either way.
Right, it just seems like when you say, “that’s not the way the government usually receives a product”, that you are implying there’s something wrong with the way they received this product.
It just seems so unrelated to what you deal with (scientific studies vs software products) that it isn’t even worth mentioning.
I can see that. But no.
Like I said, not sure how it works with software. Was only involved with that once and it worked pretty much the same as hardware.
Sure John is shooting people to death but it’s no different than Jack stabbing people to death. Makes you think 🤔
It’s not good behavior
This may well cost people their lives
People?
Personhood doesn’t begin until $1M. The poor’s aren’t people
It probably already did last week when 160+ people died in the storm.
They can’t reveal the model itself for 5 years but can obviously give the resulting forecast from it, so I don’t really see the big deal here. It’d be nice if it was freely available, but it’s not like the average person can use it without lots of knowledge and scientific equipment of their own and 5 years isn’t very long.
My guy, it says right there, twice:
…NOAA cannot reveal weather forecasts to the general public…
This fuckin’ guy 🤦
What about every other country on the planet?
Do many of them get hit with hurricanes?
shifting weather in the Sahara desert has also impacted this year’s hurricane season
Sahara desert hit by extraordinary rainfall event that could mess with this year’s hurricane season
What are typhoons?
The US is effectively a corporation. We The People have lost control. The question is what we do about it.
Bullshit. The US is an employee of a corporation of corporations.
Can you explain the difference in terms of the effect on the population?
We’re in direct control of the people with the most money. The government has lost all control. If it were a corporation, it would have control.
We are not in direct control. That’s the disconnect.
Case in point: the US sells arms to Israel. Numerous polls show a lack of support for Israel’s current actions among US citizens, and yet the arms sales continue.
I get that the electoral college is a great excuse for the popular vote not mattering in presidential elections, but what is the excuse when the country has said they don’t want their money going somewhere but it doesn’t stop flowing?
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant we’re not in control. We as a people. Corporations own the government far more than the people.
Oh, yeah. Fair enough. Totally agree.
Lol, what? What the fuck? Who are you?
They don’t want average joe to get out ahead of the corporations. Could be bad for business!
Lol, is this a joke? Am I on candid Camara? Are you clowns for real?
Sorry, what a shit, rage bait article is this?
… it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).
OK, what about IVCN? Is this available? We can assume it is as is not mentioned any more in the article. Also skimming the report it’s not like the other reports are wildly inaccurate/unusable.
Asked whether the NOAA deal affected the release of information about Hurricane Helene, Buchanan said, “HCCA is one of many computer models that forecasters use at the National Hurricane Center. NHC forecasters use a variety of model guidance, observations, and expert knowledge to develop the best and most consistent forecast, along with watches, warnings and other hazard information for use by the emergency management community, the public, and other core partners and decision makers.”
So the outrage is hot air over nothing. Got it.
It seems the outrage is over this part:
the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.
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.
If true, this is fucked.
It’s not even close to the level bullshit that has gov’t funding drug research, and then getting gouged by drug companies. That doesn’t make it right. I hate this on principle, but on a pragmatic level I doubt the difference from the many current models is noticeable other than on a trivial statistical level. That said, it does really piss me off as a matter of principle.
Something something, no taxation without representation
This feels like propaganda.
They’re confusing us again it doesn’t matter what happened before what matters is what you are doing now.
