Although technically what you state is true (closer to perfect leads to further out predictions), there is a catch here. The rate between increases in precision and increases in accuracy is itself non-linear. Non-linear dynamical systems are governed by things called Lyapunov exponents. These define the relationship between the precision of your measurement and the accuracy of your prediction over time. Unfortunately, in the case of Earth's atmospheres the Lyapunov exponents are such that you would need an exponential increase in precision to reach linear increase in accuracy. That's what defines a chaotic system. This gives a limit on how far you can predict in the future, as at some point, you hit Planck lengths for your measurements, and you would need to increase precision in the quantum world, which is considered to be impossible as modeled by Heisenberg's inequality. The exponential nature of the relationship makes this happen sooner than you would like.
I'm not sure where that boundary exactly lies in the case of Earth's atmosphere, but it can very well be that a ten-fold increase in precision leads to a 1.1 increase in accuracy, with another ten fold increase in precision adding just 1.01 (just making the numbers up). This issue of exponentially diminishing returns is well-known in the weather modeling world, so they typically use ensemble models. Instead of running one simulation and trying to increase the precision of that one, they run a few hundred with random perturbances of the initial conditions. This gives a good overview of what the future could bring. I think that's a more principled way to use computational resources than increasing precision of a single model (though, if the payoff in accuracy is good enough for the ensemble, it might be worth it).
Bah. Can you cite a single example of the Supreme Court doing anything remotely like redefining common words to mean something completely different from what they mean?
You might want to read up on some 19th century technology where the problem was figured out. Replace horses with driverless trucks, and realize that it's the cargo that matters, not the horse.
But granted, I shifted goalposts from changing batteries to changing whole trucks. Same principle though. Issues around aging and quality are the same for horses as for trucks/batteries though.
"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.