Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)(theoutline.com) |
Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)(theoutline.com) |
If you use the NOAA desktop tool[1] to view the data from NEXRAD stations, you can compare to services like DarkSky and see that they are very likely using it without much editing.
The simplest nowcasts use optical flow techniques rather than meteorological modelling. On short time scales (less than an hour), these methods can give passable results. I built a tool[2] that pulls this NWS data from their Web server and gives you a nowcast.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexrad#Super_resolution
The article really has a strong vibe of "algorithms are faulty, we need humans in the loop to make sure they're behaving well!", with a hidden assumption of "humans are less faulty than algorithms". That's an empirical assertion to be determined on a domain-by-domain basis. It's certainly true that having a human in the loop leads to worse outcomes in chess (unless the human has enough modesty to just not do anything). The same is increasingly true of other domains as well.
Perhaps someday, incorrect, largely content-free FUD articles about how algorithms suck will themselves be written entirely by algorithms.
This is pushing way too many of my buttons, so I'll just close by pointing out (on the other side of the apps/humans scale) that a substantial fraction of the time, when I check the weather on NWS, it says something like "Today's high: 56; current temperature: 58". I certainly hope that a human in the loop would fix that problem.
No, this is actually totally false. There is a world championship in computer-aided correspondence chess [1], and you won't get anywhere near the top ranks by having "enough modesty to just not do anything."
As I write this, there's some light precipitation just north of Toronto, and threecast seems to give reasonable output there. Note that the radar coverage areas aren't always perfect circles because terrain can block the radar beam.
Canada may have a similar system with better coverage, but I'm not sure.
Mainly I just have lights turn on before sunset, which works fine, but one of the programs I set up was for some indoor lights to turn on when it rains, as it usually gets quite gloomy here during rain.
It's quite common for that program to activate and turn the lights on when it's hot and sunny with no rain or clouds anywhere nearby.
I gather it must be because they're using this kind of weather forecast data and not doing any live/recent updating.
Browsers should work, right? I check the (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology website all the time on my phone. We use it to plan family trips and when to do the washing.
The flidsfdfr, the reporter girl, the character development and interaction, all great.
If not your assertion is false.
The state of art is much better now than before
Yes
> and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess,
Sure, I guess
> and play it better than humans do.
In the sense that they can beat humans in a 1v1, yes.
But none of that is relevant to the original claim, which is that a human in the loop makes a computer play worse--i.e., that human+computer is worse than computer alone. This claim is false, as the ICCF championship demonstrates each year.