"No, it's less effort than that"

I get the point, and with irresponsible parties (as is fairly widespread in most companies) there's a real risk here.

However the analogy of a meteorologist seems poor as that job is focused on predicting the weather - the typical dev is focused on operating in that weather and comparatively inexperienced in predicting with great accuracy.

What's frustrating as a stakeholder is ludicrous estimates, which don't even start with the work time, let alone end up with a realistic duration. This is particularly true (and frustrating) at the micro task level, an area I'm often requiring items that take at most 30 minute to complete and are usually things I could do in less time if only I had access... You get a weeks long estimate back, even when it's incurring a serious cost in production and falls in the drop everything category (which obviously one wants to avoid but does come up). I get that none of those 30 minute tasks will take 30 minute alone as there's testing and documentation to add but the more bs level the estimate, the more it damages the trust relationship.

Ludricrous estimates are usually a symptom of other organizational quirks.

I'd compare it to the military's $435 hammer [0], from the outside you'd think it makes no sense, but that's the logical end of a series of processes that all somehwat made sense on their own.

A common issue I've seen is devs having to put their head on the chopping block when making estimates. After the second or third time they get seriously punished for blowing pat deadlines, they'll happily go with around 10 times their own estimate. But there's so many other incentives where going with a "done in 2h" estimate is just a bad decision.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-penta...

Oh wow, I had no idea the story of the $600 hammer was still around. This has been a talking point for like 40 years now, and it was a different number when I was a little kid. Turns out the story had been debunked at least 13 years before the article you posted was written, and is 25 years old now. The military never paid hundreds of dollars for a hammer, someone just averaged a bunch of financial R&D overhead and then someone else took the numbers out of context and spread it around. https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...