Not really. In my experience HN is (and I guess many groups are) surprisingly cognitively biased against considering the risk, mostly the vibe is denialism. However, that seems to be way less true today than it has been in the past. This is great! When I'm seeing people seriously face the idea of preparing, or the consequences and risk, I feel safer because I know that there are going to be a lot of other people who want to take responsibility.
But the denialism makes sense if you don't want "existential angst" or "ontological shock" to inject into your worldview, and just want to get on with the day to day. It entirely makes sense because of how scary it is to consider given the total dependence of almost everybody on the systems that would be wiped out by a global outage.
If you intend to survive such without solely relying on luck you need to take a different approach, tho. That's okay, not everyone needs to have the same mindset, especially in "peace time". And most people will catch up pretty quickly in "war time", although for some the delay will be fatal, unavoidably.
The denialism and minimization is quite endearing (in a totally non patronizing way) such as:
- "usually no ill effects reported even from pretty strong ones"
- "resources are limited. You cannot prepare for all the threats in the world."
- "we can just fix the risk by putting counter satellites at L1 or L2 lagrange points"
Although the mood today is waay more curious and studious. Actually it's a very good response today I think, a lot of people are discussing things seriously and posting articles about the risks of a major storm.
I think 7 X-class flares in a row (space of 48 hours right?) shows just how little we really know or understand, or can scientifically predict (tho others may have better luck using different methods haha! :)) about the sun. :)