The Really Big One • Hacker News Board

Re: The Really Big One

#31

Post by stephengillie » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

serve_yay wrote: post #29

Locke1689 wrote: post #20

Hmm, in the spirit of thinking of worst-case scenarios, most of the engineering talent for Amazon and Microsoft is in Seattle and Redmond, respectively. There's even a sizable percentage of Google cloud platform in Fremont and Kirkland. Even if most of the employees live, it's likely basic infrastructure will be a disaster for quite a while. Maybe Google would be able to offload ops work to Mountain View, but it seem…

That does seem likely, though as far as I know, AWS's biggest zone is located in Northern Virginia. And, I'm sure the AWS people have planned as much as they can for this eventuality. (Um, I hope.)

AWS West in Oregon are somewhat further inland from I-5. It would probably be impacted, but not to the same degree as the datacenters in other cities like Tukwila.

Re: The Really Big One

#32

Post by kenbellows » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

jflatow wrote: post #12

jameshart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are contrasting what they describe as weekly small quakes in Japan with long periods of inactivity in the Pacific Northwest. A significant quake in one city in the region 14 years ago doesn't invalidate the claim that you could spend a significant time in the northwest without feeling a tremor.

But the article says you could spend many lifetimes.

Maybe you could, as long as those lifetimes don't happen to contain that one 6.8 event. I don't think the point was to look back several lifetimes from right now, but rather to talk about the overall frequency of earthquakes in recorded history. (Caveat: I know nothing about the seismic history of the Pacific NW, this is just how i read the statement.)

Re: The Really Big One

#33

Post by facepalm » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

edgyswingset wrote: post #14

sharkweek wrote: post #10

Well this article at least justifies that perhaps we don't need to replace the viaduct after all if everything is going to get destroyed anyways! While my fear of "the big one" doesn't keep me up at night, Seattle is going to be a classic example of "we should have known this was going to happen!" after a sizable earthquake costs substantial life at some point in the future. But this article does seem to stretch itse…

I don't think a tsunami is going to flatten the city. A wave has a lot to go through (peninsulas, narrow straights, etc) before it could reach the city, all of which would likely lessen its impact significantly. Where the area will get hit hard, though, is liquifaction and landslides.

Tsunamis are not like normal waves. I think they might be more like a really big rise of the tides.

Re: The Really Big One

#34

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #27

I used to live in Portland, and thought about this impending catastrophe a lot. Once -- under the influence of intoxicants, most likely -- I came up with a way of dramatically reducing its impact. It's a batshit crazy solution which will never actually happen -- but even when I'm sober, I still think it would work. Here's what I'm thinking: the major problem with a disaster like this is the uncertainty surrounding it…

I think the other problem with your idea is that people won't behave as if it's inevitable, because they'll know that there's at least the possibility of having the event postponed or canceled. Worse, the more people who refrain from preparing, the better the odds are of getting a postponement or cancellation.

I like the idea, though. I proposed something similar in another earthquake-related HN thread a while back. If you can't stop or predict natural disasters, make them predictable by causing them yourself!

Re: The Really Big One

#35

Post by kenferry » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

Is there any work on inducing earthquakes to relieve stress before it builds to catastrophe levels?

Re: The Really Big One

#36

Post by nestlequ1k » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #27

I used to live in Portland, and thought about this impending catastrophe a lot. Once -- under the influence of intoxicants, most likely -- I came up with a way of dramatically reducing its impact. It's a batshit crazy solution which will never actually happen -- but even when I'm sober, I still think it would work. Here's what I'm thinking: the major problem with a disaster like this is the uncertainty surrounding it…

Idea is fascinating. Aside from the political unfeasibility (people won't be convinced an earthquake will ever happen here), I'd be worried about technical execution.

Could we really cause an earthquake? How many nukes would it take? How much would the operation cost? What if someone steals a nuke while they are installing it (add some more to security cost)? What if we can't predict how it will react and end up causing more damage?

Could go on and on with these questions for an hour. And each of these questions means more time / money to come up with solutions.

The easy, stupid, and probably correct answer is... let nature sort it out. Our species is great at surviving and rebuilding. Better to worry about stuff we can control and fix than try to attempt to control things wildly beyond our means.

Re: The Really Big One

#37

Post by jchrisa » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

Portland has an admirable style when it comes to resilience. At least at the grass roots. It'd be great to see an Apollo program around earthquake preparedness.

There is a carry-heavy loads around the city cargo bike race that's been going on for a few years. http://disasterrelieftrials.com/

Re: The Really Big One

#38

Post by MrZongle2 » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

iamjs wrote: post #15

Does the New Yorker just inject random comics into their stories? None of these illustrations appear to be related to the content.

It's worse than that: none of those illustrations appear to be related to humor.

Edit: Looks like we've got a couple of New Yorker cartoon aficionados on HN. I guess I'll have to save my stinging comments for edgier content, such as Doonsbury and Garfield. /s

Re: The Really Big One

#39

Post by dgraunke » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

edgyswingset wrote: post #14

sharkweek wrote: post #10

Well this article at least justifies that perhaps we don't need to replace the viaduct after all if everything is going to get destroyed anyways! While my fear of "the big one" doesn't keep me up at night, Seattle is going to be a classic example of "we should have known this was going to happen!" after a sizable earthquake costs substantial life at some point in the future. But this article does seem to stretch itse…

I don't think a tsunami is going to flatten the city. A wave has a lot to go through (peninsulas, narrow straights, etc) before it could reach the city, all of which would likely lessen its impact significantly. Where the area will get hit hard, though, is liquifaction and landslides.

Yeah, and the Elliot Bay tsunami hazard map[1] is a nice reminder that most of Seattle is up some steep hills (including flat areas like SLU). The hazard map models a 7.3 earthquake on the Seattle fault, which is tiny compared to a 9.0 in the subduction zone, but also doesn't have to travel through all those narrows straits and turns.

[1] http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/wals2794/wals2794.pdf

Re: The Really Big One

#40

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #20

Hmm, in the spirit of thinking of worst-case scenarios, most of the engineering talent for Amazon and Microsoft is in Seattle and Redmond, respectively. There's even a sizable percentage of Google cloud platform in Fremont and Kirkland. Even if most of the employees live, it's likely basic infrastructure will be a disaster for quite a while. Maybe Google would be able to offload ops work to Mountain View, but it seem…

I believe you are giving reasons why our computational infrastructure needs to be further distributed. We should not be dependent on a small number of companies who wish to locate their resources in continental subduction zones.