Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Really Big One

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 286 posts

Re: The Really Big One

#221

Post by mindcrime »

GregBuchholz wrote: post #144
sterl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea is fantastic. However, we can do one better. We can control the quake such that we use a sequence of low energy quakes distributed across many years to eliminate the need for the large quick entirely.

We can even do better than that and harvest the potential energy stored, rather than simply dissipating it as heat and motion. How to do this is left as an exercise to the reader.

> How to do this is left as an exercise to the reader.

For some reason I am picturing this cartoon:

http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Pictures/miracle.gif

Re: The Really Big One

#222

Post by yclept »

anigbrowl wrote: post #219

Meanwhile the barrier to a proper early warning system for the west coast is a whopping $15.6 million a year, of which California has managed to get a whole $5 million from Congress so far - http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-quake-early-wa... Honestly, I'm a little unclear as to why we are even going to Congress for this, instead of the governments of CA, WA and OR agreeing to divide up the sum based on p…

How about a kickstarter?!

Re: The Really Big One

#223

Post by nichtich »

hrktb wrote: post #189
nordsieck wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people predict lots of catastrophes. The trick is identifying the correct ones ahead of time. This is much more difficult than you are implying.

I think it's still very simple. We can view it through the concept of discount rate [0], basically people don't value a future event as much as a present one. The world ending in 50 years is not worth making drastic efforts now, at least for most people. If your prediction is too costly on the short term, as accurate as it can be most people won't act on it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_choice

I think the parent means something else. You can find people predicting all kinds of disasters for the next 5 years and maybe some of them are right. But it's very hard for governments to know which one are right. Especially considering some are of the form "there's more than 50% possibility something bad will happen". In this case even if the bad thing doesn't happen in 5 years, you are still not sure if you should disregard the warning.

Re: The Really Big One

#224

Post by platz »

prawn wrote: post #186
waynecochran wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the whole thing in gripping detail with Mt St Helens out my office window... I was imagining the horror of not being able to blog about my death as the Tsunami was approaching...

I think the human toll goes without saying (well, until you said it). The technical impact is naturally of interest specifically to HN readers.

Especially since we know HN readers are sociopaths

Re: The Really Big One

#225

Post by jodrellblank »

sterl wrote: post #91
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…

This idea is fantastic. However, we can do one better. We can control the quake such that we use a sequence of low energy quakes distributed across many years to eliminate the need for the large quick entirely.

If only you had ~80,000 years of 5.0 earthquakes every month to dissipate one 9.0 earthquake's energy.

Re: The Really Big One

#226

Post by pyre »

mratzloff wrote: post #142
civilian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The viaduct's collapse in the next big earthquake and the ~80 lives it'll take is the _reason_ we're building something as a replacement! Granted, Bertha is a huge fuckup. A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million. And then pass a law that the compensation for families of the victims is limited to what's…

I'm sure he thought that was a clever solution. Except that every time even one direction of the viaduct is closed during rush hour (due to an overturned semi or whatever) traffic grinds to a complete halt throughout the entire city .

That sounds like a decent justification for just continuing to use it until it collapses on its own due to disrepair!

Re: The Really Big One

#227

Post by jodrellblank »

waynecochran wrote: post #158
jodrellblank wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost like you didn't read the article.

I read the whole thing in gripping detail with Mt St Helens out my office window... I was imagining the horror of not being able to blog about my death as the Tsunami was approaching...

Then you'll realise the human impact was mentioned repeatedly in the article - population in the affected regions, elderly people, school children, estimated death counts by different organizations. That was one main focus of the article - how many people such an event would kill.

Why is it necessary to prefix/suffix a comment on the article, with an "of course, people will die and that's obviously bad, we don't want people to die, is this enough mentioning of the people dying that we can say something else without you passive aggressively implying I don't care about the people dying?"

Re: The Really Big One

#228

Post by princeb »

lexcorvus wrote: post #199
hrktb wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's still very simple. We can view it through the concept of discount rate [0], basically people don't value a future event as much as a present one. The world ending in 50 years is not worth making drastic efforts now, at least for most people. If your prediction is too costly on the short term, as accurate as it can be most people won't act on it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_choice

I suspect this is in part a side-effect of the Anglo-American (maturity-mismatched) banking system, which keeps long-term interest rates artificially low, leading to higher time preference.

the discount rate applies to utility, which may or may not have any relation to the discount rate of money.

Re: The Really Big One

#229

Post by jodrellblank »

codingdave wrote: post #118
fizixer wrote: post #87

In recent past, I had this thought that Silicon Valley is sitting on top of, or very close to, potential future fault activity. And I have a hard time believing that the key component of human civilization (technology) is so vulnerable, and was built after the 1906 disaster. It's one of the factors I would consider when deciding if I really want to move to west coast.

You think technology is the key component to human civilization? I would have thought of food.

Where are you going to get food (for a population) without oil powered GPS controlled farm machinery, trucks and technological processing plants, information technology controlled distribution, electricity and on a slightly longer timescale, oil based fertilisers?

OK, in a localised disaster you're going to import it. But still, you can grow squash in your back yard, but enough food for all humans means mechanised agriculture, and that's not just tractors. Food is a technology (albeit not a Google one - yet).

Re: The Really Big One

#230

Post by matryoshka4811 »

protomyth wrote: post #135
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could find some definitive resources on whether or not a building would be considered safe in a tsunami, and if it would be better to go for higher floors or lower floors. I imagine that after such a large earth quake, many buildings would be unstable and potentially open to collapse from the force of a tsunami. I'm sure going to higher ground would be a better idea if possible, but say if it was iffy to get…

Remembering a lot of the video from Japan, it looked like most of videos were from people who went into parking garages (concrete)[1]. Regular buildings took a pretty big hit, but I'm not sure how the local building code / materials played in that. 1) I'm going with the logic that surviving video person uploading to youtube is probably a good sample of the "worked" side of the equation.

That's really interesting. I guess when the 'big one' hits, those of us in my Sacramento apartment complex can go hang out next door with our cars in the garage. I wouldn't have thought of that myself honestly.
Post reply on HN