Minor things that bother you

[Scott5114]

When I do a google search and their ai results pop up at the top every single time.

Two words: verbatim mode.

[thenetwork]

Walmart in general bothers me enough that I often take my business elsewhere.  Every facet of the shopping experience is retail hellscape of the highest order.

I'm not a big fan of Wally-Mart, but I have a Neighborhood Walmart and a Kroger within a few blocks of each other.  Both have Gas/C-Stores on the corner of their parking lots.

I will drive a tad further and use the Neighborhood Walmart if I only need a couple of grocery items that I know are cheaper there, because I can usually park closer to the doors and you rarely have to wait for a checkout (full or self serve) compared to the usual madhouse at the Kroger store up the street.

The other reason why I will stop by the Neighborhood Walmart is for the C-Store portion of the gas station (I get better loyalty points and discounts at Kroger and the local Maverik stores).  Compared to all the other C-stores that jack up prices for all their food and drink offerings, you pay the Walmart store price which is way less than the C-store prices and again you can usually get in and out faster.

I only avoid the Walmart right before the High school (directly across the street) kids arrive before school, during lunch breaks, and when the kids end their day as they swarm both the grocery and gas station.  But is fun watching all the Goth  and stoners walk in and out of there like Zombies with no emotion.

[kkt]

I've been to worse places than Walmart, but the scary thing about Walmart is how much of the retail market they control and how many good stores they've driven out of business.

[mgk920]

One car parked askew in two spaces.

Mike

[GaryV]

One car parked askew in two spaces.

That guy's a piker. Really accomplished drivers can park diagonally to take up 3 or 4 spaces.

[wanderer2575]

One car parked askew in two spaces.

That guy's a piker. Really accomplished drivers can park diagonally to take up 3 or 4 spaces.

The difference is that the accomplished schmuck driver does it deliberately, while most "pikers" don't have that intention but it happens because they don't know how to maneuver their vehicles.  Somehow, that's more  irritating.

[SSOWorld]

One car parked askew in two spaces.

Mike

just like my car in my garage 

Walmart in general bothers me enough that I often take my business elsewhere.  Every facet of the shopping experience is retail hellscape of the highest order.

And when Wally World is your only option?

the fact that they still don't take standard tech contactless payment is my peeve about Wally World. (Having to use a QR CODE read through their app.  Sure, gives you an e-receipt, but everything's contained still on their servers and they use it to mine data and toss ads at you.

[Rothman]

Wait, what is it us Americans are supposed to say when someone says Walmart is their only option?

Something like:

Work harder.  Make more money.  Move to a better place.  It's a free country.  The only one holding you back is yourself...

</s>

[kkt]

Wait, what is it us Americans are supposed to say when someone says Walmart is their only option?

Something like:

Work harder.  Make more money.  Move to a better place.  It's a free country.  The only one holding you back is yourself...

</s>

Yep.  Means Walmart has been there for a while and driven all the better grocers away.

[vdeane]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

[gonealookin]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

I pay for an annual subscription to Open Snow.  The local poster goes into quite a bit of detail about the forecast (sort of an expanded "Forecast Discussion", if you read those on the regional NWS sites), adjusts it as necessary for a few days as a storm approaches, posts a final forecast the day before and then issues himself a report card when it's over.  For example here's his forecast, the actual snowfall and the differences for our local ski resorts from a decent storm last week:



I find his forecasts more realistic than those from NWS, which I think leans toward over-forecasting the severity of storms because they don't want to be blamed when a forecast of 4 inches of snow turns into a foot and people are caught unprepared.

[SEWIGuy]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

When I was living in Green Bay, we had this storm in March of 2023.

https://www.weather.gov/grb/032523_winterstorm

The amount of snow was significantly heavier than forecast just a few hours prior. On Monday morning, the TV meteorologist went into great detail over how they got it wrong, and it was striking because I never remembered that happening before.

[Scott5114]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

This is something you get over pretty quick when you live in an area that has live tornado coverage—watching the meteorologist cover the forecast falling apart in real time is very instructive as to the large number of variables that can cause such an outcome. (With supercells in particular, it's often something like "a front moved into the area faster than expected and undercut the storms before they could become established" or "conditions were favorable for a tornado if the storms started at 4pm but for some reason they fired off at 11am, when it wasn't warm enough for them to stay together very long".)

In Oklahoma, the average viewer is assumed to be familiar with the way a thunderstorm works, so a brief discussion during the 10pm news of why there were no tornadoes is feasible, but in other markets I would imagine they would require enough education of basic principles that it wouldn't be a good use of the limited time. Generally people are more interested in current conditions than what can be a very complicated explanation as to what went wrong with the previous forecast (which the viewer may not have even seen).

[Scott5114]

When the city does something mildly interesting with a street blade...but it's your street blade, so you can't talk about it without fear of doxxing yourself.

[jeffandnicole]

When the city does something mildly interesting with a street blade...but it's your street blade, so you can't talk about it without fear of doxxing yourself.

"On X Street in Y city, there is..." wouldn't reveal anything about you. Especially when we know what city you're living in or near, that would just tell us you have knowledge of the city's streets.

But now we'll know. 

[kernals12]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

[kernals12]

The fact that the original Matlock tries to claim it's set in Atlanta when background shots make it blatantly obvious that it was filmed in Los Angeles

[Max Rockatansky]

Rain showers which weren't in the forecast ruining my morning plans to run my collector car for a half hour.

[formulanone]

The fact that the original Matlock tries to claim it's set in Atlanta when background shots make it blatantly obvious that it was filmed in Los Angeles

Nowadays, they'd try the opposite, as there's lots of studios in the Atlanta metro area.

[formulanone]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

This is something you get over pretty quick when you live in an area that has live tornado coverage—watching the meteorologist cover the forecast falling apart in real time is very instructive as to the large number of variables that can cause such an outcome. (With supercells in particular, it's often something like "a front moved into the area faster than expected and undercut the storms before they could become established" or "conditions were favorable for a tornado if the storms started at 4pm but for some reason they fired off at 11am, when it wasn't warm enough for them to stay together very long".)

In Oklahoma, the average viewer is assumed to be familiar with the way a thunderstorm works, so a brief discussion during the 10pm news of why there were no tornadoes is feasible, but in other markets I would imagine they would require enough education of basic principles that it wouldn't be a good use of the limited time. Generally people are more interested in current conditions than what can be a very complicated explanation as to what went wrong with the previous forecast (which the viewer may not have even seen).

While we'd like a little accountability, I think most people want to know about Now and Upcoming rather than Yesterday and Past, so any (incorrect) past information is disposable and fungible. After all, you can't instill confidence with information if you're reminding everyone about errors made in the past. It's not a thoroughly exact science, it deals with hypotheticals and past performances. You'd at least hope that incorrect predictions are studied for future data with greater precision...which is how science works.

[Rothman]

Rain showers which weren't in the forecast ruining my morning plans to run my collector car for a half hour.

Rain hurts.

[Max Rockatansky]

Rain showers which weren't in the forecast ruining my morning plans to run my collector car for a half hour.

Rain hurts.

It does mentally considering how much effort I put into detailing that car and keeping it clean.  I used to detail cars as a side gig until was 21.  While it can be something I enjoy, it is often just as big in the ass.

Aside from that, the 245 summer tires I have aren't great for the rain.  The rear wheels sometimes spin even at a quarter throttle if it is wet enough.  I'm hoping it clears up a little bit so I can make a quick round drive before I leave for Modesto.

[US 89]

In Oklahoma, the average viewer is assumed to be familiar with the way a thunderstorm works, so a brief discussion during the 10pm news of why there were no tornadoes is feasible, but in other markets I would imagine they would require enough education of basic principles that it wouldn't be a good use of the limited time. Generally people are more interested in current conditions than what can be a very complicated explanation as to what went wrong with the previous forecast (which the viewer may not have even seen).

As a meteorologist (though not in broadcast), this is correct. Explanations for why a forecast went wrong are often not easy to do in a quick manner, because you have to lay out what conditions looked like at the time and also explain the science in a way that the average Joe off the street can understand and how it caused actual conditions to differ from expected. There just isn't time for that in a typical weather segment of a newscast, which people are typically watching to find out what's to come, not what happened already. If there's time for a deep dive story segment, maybe, but this so low priority a topic for those types of segments that you'll almost never see it unless the storm was really impactful (or was forecast to be and wasn't), or it's a really slow news day.

A lot of people out there also aren't good with probabilities, and will hear a 20% chance of rain as "It won't rain" and of course get all pissed when it does. Or other people will hear that same forecast, cancel their outdoor plans, and then get pissed if it doesn't rain. Some people really will get annoyed if the temperature gets to 72 instead of just 70. So for somebody out there, the vast majority of forecasts you make will be "wrong" in some way, even if you communicated that uncertainty.

The last thing is that forecasting is hard. The models are getting better, but are almost never exactly right, and each one has its own biases. Local geography, particularly at small scales that the models don't resolve, also plays a huge role. The longer you forecast for a particular area or location, the more accurate you'll be for there. But even if you have a very long tenure and you know the ins and outs of every geographical nook and cranny, the atmosphere will still find ways to humble you. As an example, lake effect snow in northern Utah is a bitch to forecast because there are so many variables that go into it (lake temperature, upper air temperature, wind shear, wind direction, upstream moisture content, surrounding terrain, and more) and they all have to be more or less right to get anything. About a month ago, we had an event where all these parameters looked really good on the guidance, and models were putting out these huge lake bands with some of the strongest signals anyone in the office had seen. So of course we messaged pretty heavily for lake effect snow and some impacts in and near SLC. You know what happened instead? The flow came in a bit drier than expected, and we wound up getting exactly one brief light rain shower.

[jeffandnicole]

The way meteorologists won't ever explain why a forecast they made was wrong.  Instead they just go over current conditions and pretend they never said whatever different thing they said the night before.  It must be some kind of pride thing, because when a forecast shifts, they'll say that and explain what changed, but if the weather happens and ends up different than what they said, not a peep.  We never even got an apology for the eclipse debacle in western NY (I'll probably still be pissed over that until the day I die).

I have long complained about weather forecasters.  They are frequently incorrect.  People aren't going to notice when they say 78 and it's actually 85, or a forecasted cloudy day is sunny instead.  But when there's snow in the forecast and it doesn't, or it wasn't supposed to fall below freezing and suddenly the roads are icy, people take notice.

I have seen forecasters 'apologize' for a wrong forecast - in unison.  All the major channel's forecasters suddenly appear to have gotten together to say they screwed up the forecast.  But that's it. They'll do it maybe once a season.  The next time around? So be it - they won't mention anything about it.

But I also found it's a fruitless effort to complain.  Say anything on their Facebook pages, and suddenly you have thousands of people defending them, saying it's a tough job, can't control the weather, etc.  People aren't asking them to control the weather.  They're asking them to get the forecast correct.  They are metrologists.  They went to college for the education.  It's their *one job*. 

The people defending them are also the same ones that go ballistic when a 16 year old cashier doesn't give them back the right change, because math is a basic subject. They'll also mis-use "there", "their" and "they're" in the same complaint, but that's ok since English, wait...wasn't that a basic subject also?

Since people are likely to tune in the next day waiting to see what the weather will be, forecasters find that there's no reason to bring up their errors since the general public doesn't care to find another channel to watch. 

[jeffandnicole]

A lot of people out there also aren't good with probabilities, and will hear a 20% chance of rain as "It won't rain" and of course get all pissed when it does. Or other people will hear that same forecast, cancel their outdoor plans, and then get pissed if it doesn't rain. Some people really will get annoyed if the temperature gets to 72 instead of just 70. So for somebody out there, the vast majority of forecasts you make will be "wrong" in some way, even if you communicated that uncertainty.

This one I get - I see it a lot for destinations like Punta Cana, where it's going to rain nearly every day, but just briefly.  Many think that it means all day rain, which isn't true.  However, the forecasters also will often diminish the chance it'll rain, but yet will then claim "well we did say there was a change of rain" when it does.  So basically any forecast where they claim a 1% or greater chance of rain, they claim they were correct. 

The last thing is that forecasting is hard. The models are getting better, but are almost never exactly right, and each one has its own biases. Local geography, particularly at small scales that the models don't resolve, also plays a huge role. The longer you forecast for a particular area or location, the more accurate you'll be for there. But even if you have a very long tenure and you know the ins and outs of every geographical nook and cranny, the atmosphere will still find ways to humble you. As an example, lake effect snow in northern Utah is a bitch to forecast because there are so many variables that go into it (lake temperature, upper air temperature, wind shear, wind direction, upstream moisture content, surrounding terrain, and more) and they all have to be more or less right to get anything. About a month ago, we had an event where all these parameters looked really good on the guidance, and models were putting out these huge lake bands with some of the strongest signals anyone in the office had seen. So of course we messaged pretty heavily for lake effect snow and some impacts in and near SLC. You know what happened instead? The flow came in a bit drier than expected, and we wound up getting exactly one brief light rain shower.

This I get also, but then again, weather forecasters often say they can usually nail a forecast within 3 days.  Yet this is so often not true.  Since most people aren't going to keep track of the constant forecasts - and changes from one broadcast to another - there's some leeway there.  And forecasters will often say "well, we told you at 11pm it'll be raining in the morning.  True - but you didn't say that during the 6pm broadcast, and many people waking up early in the morning also aren't watching the late 11pm forecast.

All of this goes into how the forecaster is always correct...even when they aren't.