So SF is screwed right?
The Really Big One
121–130 of 286 posts
Re: The Really Big One
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no shortage of advertising on The New Yorker.
That killed me when I subscribed to the NYT online. I was paying $15/mo and seeing as many ads as I would expect from a free site. I love the NYT journalism and am willing to pay for it, and I understand they have bills to pay, but it's a lot of money to be sitting on ads. In fact I canceled my subscription (not a quick or easy process) and have the same amount of advertising on their NYT Now app whether I subscribe…
This is how dead tree magazines and papers work. You pay for a subscription and you still receive ads. Why would they think the web should be any different?
Re: The Really Big One
#123After watching the Japanese Tsunami, it got me wondering about a weather-balloon-like device. You strap it on like a life jacket, and you wait for the wave to come your way. As it approaches, you pull the cord. Something that looks like a weather balloon inflates, extends the length of a tether, and then you float a few hundred feet in the air, and then float back down a while later. Why is this a dumb idea?
Where do you get the helium needed to make it fly through the air? If you're just pumping air, at best you would float on water, which still leaves you vulnerable to being killed by something else that is floating (possibly a pickup truck, a growler of Rogue Dead Guy Ale or maybe the Space Needle).
Re: The Really Big One
#124I 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…
Hydraulic fracturing is now known as a way to cause earthquakes. What if we start fracking around the NW fault zones to cause one? Of course, how do you lubricate it just enough to cause a small quake but not the giant one? Fortunately, Oklahoma, with their anti-science "we don't believe in global warming and we are against figuring out what is causing these not seen for 100 year earthquakes" is testing out exactly h…
From what I've read about seismology you are on the right track. It is likely simpler to create an earthquake by water injections along a fault then it is to make 'boom' and hope something works. The big issue here is the control portion. If a fault has been building pressure for hundreds of years it is unlikely that we will have any certainty on what needs to be done to trigger only a earthquake of size X. Most likely we can start a quake, but if there is enough strain on the crust already the shaking will feedback into the crust causing further slippage down the fault.
Re: The Really Big One
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Really Big One: earthquake wipes out the Pacific Northwest. Really needed that?
... this article seemed to be talking about a potential future earthquake. And it's a very long article.
It discusses why a big earthquake is likely to hit the PNW in the next 50 years with lots of flowery language and science. TL;DR: There's a big earthquake that is likely to hit the PNW in the next 50 years.
Re: The Really Big One
#126Is there any work on inducing earthquakes to relieve stress before it builds to catastrophe levels?
It's something that most seismologists have thought of before. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how much stress has already been accumulated. We also don't know nearly enough about earthquake triggering to be able to do it in a controlled fashion once, let alone repeatedly. You'd have to do this thousands of times (log scaling, remember!), in a new location each time, to produce enough small earthquakes to r…
Nothing like a cascade failure to make an already stressful project into a terrifying experience.
Re: The Really Big One
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only would there be significant downtime of major internet services, but lots of people would die as well!
Downtime of major internet services could also cause deaths elsewhere, as more industries become reliant on cloud services. I could imagine hospitals losing access to health records, emergency responders losing access to mapping or route planning software, people losing access to Uber and not being able to get to the hospital because the taxi companies have gone out of business. Of course all this stuff is supposed t…
Man. In times like these—the northwest falling into the ocean or whatever—it's unimaginable to think about the sheer amount of data loss that could occur. I'd probably be really worried about that loss of data or, worse, the loss of services if millions of people suddenly died.
Re: The Really Big One
#128There's a nuclear submarine base there too :(
Re: The Really Big One
#129A heads up: this peace is 6.3K+ word long and according to my estimate it would take you around 45 mins to finish reading it.
Enjoy!
Re: The Really Big One
#130Hmm, 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…
Not only would there be significant downtime of major internet services, but lots of people would die as well!
That would be absolutely horrific, a loss that I can't even comprehend.
The loss of life would be sad too. /s