Are tv weatherman/woman needed anymore?

[bunnspecial]

Does your phone let you know which neighourhoods in your town are going to be hit? Track the path of the storm cell or funnel cloud? Tell you that the cloud has formed or that it is going to touch down?

None of the 5 different weather apps I have tell me that, and that even includes the Emergency and Red Cross apps.

BL.

The whole point about live "on the ground" coverage of severe local weather is a great one. Radar data tied with on the ground reports is great.

With that said, I do have a weather app that gives me warnings based on my current location. It's run by-guess what-one of the local TV stations, and only works within their coverage area.

 

[maflynn]

The whole point about live "on the ground" coverage of severe local weather is a great one

To a point, as I think weathermen going out in a hurricane to say there's a hurricane and do not go out is silly. The weather channel is probably the worst for this.

 

[marc55]

Hey, if they can pay Vanna White over $5M for that job, weather folks are still necessary; at least they are doing something worth while.

 

[Volusia]

If you're talking about the Weather Channel specifically, yeah, dump 'em. They used to be pretty solid, but have sensationalized every last weather disturbance.

I agree, the TWC puts so much hype into every little weather disturbance that it becomes extremely annoying. I have always thought it was totally unnecessary to have the "announcer" stand in front of and block the maps while discussing the weather.

 

[Strider64]

My father is 89 and uses a smartphone for getting his weather. Though he's always tells people he doesn't use the smartphone for much, but he's always using it. I still at times watch the local weather forecast for a lot of times it still doesn't jive with the weather app.

 

[8692574]

Were they really ever needed??? I mean in a weather program all you ever needed was the map with the info and a voice over to tell you more about it....
Weather man / woman where always there for other reason

 

[juanm]

Simply put, humans will be made redundant for most jobs within twenty years.

 

[Tech198]

Even if it is still all based on predictions and patterns, history etc.. its still something

 

[Tomorrow]

Simply put, humans will be made redundant for most jobs within twenty years.

I wouldn't count on that.

 

[juanm]

I wouldn't count on that.

Okay, don't.

 

[Tomorrow]

Okay, don't.

How can humans be made redundant for jobs like cooks, lawyers, masseuses, engineers, artists, teachers, doctors, police, janitors - you could almost take your pick. Sure, there might be parts of some of these jobs that could possibly be automated, but anything requiring human interaction, decision making, etc. is probably never going to be trusted completely to machinery.

 

[C DM]

Simply put, humans will be made redundant for most jobs within twenty years.

They were saying that 20 years ago as well.

 

[juanm]

How can humans be made redundant for jobs like cooks, lawyers, masseuses, engineers, artists, teachers, doctors, police, janitors - you could almost take your pick. Sure, there might be parts of some of these jobs that could possibly be automated, but anything requiring human interaction, decision making, etc. is probably never going to be trusted completely to machinery.

Okay, I don't mean that ALL jobs in ALL categories will be able to be automated, it means that many jobs in each category will be able to be assisted by automation, allowing less people to achieve more. For instance, instead of 10 teachers, it could be that just 2, assisted with modern teaching methods, will be able to achieve the same workload. There will still be a human "in the loop".

Cooks? yes. Not all of them, but by being assisted, many jobs in kitchens/restaurants will be automated (it's already happening)
Teachers? yes. MOOCs are the future, like it or not.
Doctors will be increasingly assisted. They are already working on making deep learning AI interpret X-rays with more accuracy than humans. Arguably healthcare will take more time than other trades.
Police? Again there will still be police officers, but for instance you could have half the force, by relegating patrolling to UAV (drones) and automated cars. That's a massive decrease in jobs.
Army? Look at what DARPA is doing now. Robots and droneships. And that's what they make public, they don't show what's classified.
Janitors? Cleaning robots + smart surveillance systems. Again, not ALL janitors, but where 10 worked, it will be 3. It doesn't mean humanoid robots, it could be for instance that instead of having a few guys cleaning, lawn mowing, etc, you'll get one guy assisting glorified roomba robots and having a lawn mowing roomba come every other week.
"Artists" is too wide a field, but oddly, by their nature, it'll be one of the most resilient jobs, challenging the expression "starving artist".

Being practical, if a 5% increase in unemployment is already a catastrophe in any economy, imagine what AI + automation will do. The industrial revolution made machines stronger than humans and relegated us to intellectual jobs. When AI gets better than us at each task, what will we do?
[doublepost=1465481889][/doublepost]

They were saying that 20 years ago as well.

They were off time-wise, but it's happening. "Physical" jobs will still be there, but many jobs will be doable by human assisted software

 

[C DM]

Okay, I don't mean that ALL jobs in ALL categories will be able to be automated, it means that many jobs in each category will be able to be assisted by automation, allowing less people to achieve more. For instance, instead of 10 teachers, it could be that just 2, assisted with modern teaching methods, will be able to achieve the same workload. There will still be a human "in the loop".

Cooks? yes. Not all of them, but by being assisted, many jobs in kitchens/restaurants will be automated (it's already happening)
Teachers? yes. MOOCs are the future, like it or not.
Doctors will be increasingly assisted. They are already working on making deep learning AI interpret X-rays with more accuracy than humans. Arguably healthcare will take more time than other trades.
Police? Again there will still be police officers, but for instance you could have half the force, by relegating patrolling to UAV (drones) and automated cars. That's a massive decrease in jobs.
Army? Look at what DARPA is doing now. Robots and droneships. And that's what they make public, they don't show what's classified.
Janitors? Cleaning robots + smart surveillance systems. Again, not ALL janitors, but where 10 worked, it will be 3. It doesn't mean humanoid robots, it could be for instance that instead of having a few guys cleaning, lawn mowing, etc, you'll get one guy assisting glorified roomba robots and having a lawn mowing roomba come every other week.
"Artists" is too wide a field, but oddly, by their nature, it'll be one of the most resilient jobs, challenging the expression "starving artist".

Being practical, if a 5% increase in unemployment is already a catastrophe in any economy, imagine what AI + automation will do. The industrial revolution made machines stronger than humans and relegated us to intellectual jobs. When AI gets better than us at each task, what will we do?
[doublepost=1465481889][/doublepost]

They were off time-wise, but it's happening. "Physical" jobs will still be there, but many jobs will be doable by human assisted software

And people will still have jobs nonetheless.

 

[juanm]

And people will still have jobs nonetheless.

Okay, good luck.

 

[MacNut]

The Weather Channel has turned into T&A, and pointless shows about people digging through rocks.

That said, during severe weather the local guys do still serve a purpose. Most people don't know how to read maps on their phones when a tornado is heading there way. And very few still use weather radios to alert them of severe weather.

I spend 10 bucks for a high quality radar app, but most civilians won't do that. I am a weather geek so I love all of the geeky weather speak, but the average person still needs the suit to tel them whats coming.

For those really interested I would suggest going to a NWS spotter class.

 

[hallux]

Were they really ever needed??? I mean in a weather program all you ever needed was the map with the info and a voice over to tell you more about it....
Weather man / woman where always there for other reason

This may be hard to believe but there was a day when all that info had to be assembled for presentation, it wasn't all done on computers. I still remember visiting a local TV station as a kid, the weather guy would get these HUGE print outs of seemingly random numbers that he then had to interpret to then put together the map of fronts and high/low pressure areas. That's all done by the computers these days but the weather guy can still add local knowledge and anecdotes to contribute to more accuracy.

The one station I usually watch actually runs several models for snow storms, they present what each model predicts then suggests which might be the closest based on how they've been performing so far.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I hardly ever watch the local newscast on TV. So I would say that the whole 30 minute program isn't needed anymore.

 

[hallux]

I hardly ever watch the local newscast on TV. So I would say that the whole 30 minute program isn't needed anymore.

Your local news only does 30 minute shows? My local stations do at least 90 minutes in the evening, from 5 PM until the national broadcast comes on.

Side note - because YOU see no purpose to the news shows means they should cancel them and put dozens of people out of jobs? What do you propose gets aired in that place? We have MORE than enough Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, etc. programs on air...

 

[bunnspecial]

To a point, as I think weathermen going out in a hurricane to say there's a hurricane and do not go out is silly. The weather channel is probably the worst for this.

On the other hand, when you're in a snow storm and you have local meteorologists out driving around to give road condition reports you appreciate having them.

Also, my town is very prone to flash flooding. There are areas that been known to go from no standing water to over the top of a car in 10-20 minutes. The local stations know these areas well and can often give a few minutes warning of anticipated flash flooding in certain areas(something that I've never seen on a model). That can mean a lot when your work parking lot is in one of those areas and you get a little more advanced warning on getting out safely.

 

[maflynn]

On the other hand, when you're in a snow storm and you have local meteorologists out driving around to give road condition reports you appreciate having them.

Actually, no, I think that's silly. We don't need to someone stuck on the road reporting that conditions are horrible, don't go out. Its kind of evident by the constant snow and low visibility

 

[Gutwrench]

The only time I might tune in local weather is during a severe storm that are producing tornados in the area, particularly after dark. Otherwise I never rely on local weather. In fact I never tune into the local news ever.

 

[Huntn]

Yes.

I never realized how appealing the weather could be.

The only time I might tune in local weather is during a severe storm that are producing tornados in the area, particularly after dark. Otherwise I never rely on local weather. In fact I never tune into the local news ever.

Seems like I've tuned out local news too.

 

[rdowns]

Your local news only does 30 minute shows? My local stations do at least 90 minutes in the evening, from 5 PM until the national broadcast comes on.

Side note - because YOU see no purpose to the news shows means they should cancel them and put dozens of people out of jobs? What do you propose gets aired in that place? We have MORE than enough Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, etc. programs on air...

Local news is where stations make their money. In NYC, local news starts at 4:30am and runs until 7am. Another 30-60 minutes at noon and then from 4:30-6:30 and of course, 11pm. Someone must be watching.

 

[juanm]

How can humans be made redundant for jobs like cooks, lawyers, masseuses, engineers, artists, teachers, doctors, police, janitors - you could almost take your pick. Sure, there might be parts of some of these jobs that could possibly be automated, but anything requiring human interaction, decision making, etc. is probably never going to be trusted completely to machinery.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4623ba-17be-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

In experiments on pigs, surgical stitches made by autonomous robots were as good as or better than stitches made by skilled surgeons. Of course, it's still just babysteps, and like you said we'll keep a human in the loop for a very long time, but it'll happen eventually.