[counters]

> 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.