Tesseracts wrote:In this age of falsehoods and lies, it's comforting to know some people are genuinely idiots.
ShuaiGuy wrote:Most of my immediate family is in the Pacific Northwest. I have almost 0 concern to give to this issue. I've heard about it before, but it's more super-disaster scaremongering. It's like Yellowstone, or whatever other disasters we're all supposed to die from.
Edit: Yea, I just finished the article. Basic scaremongering. With bad math thrown in. Nate Silver's book about Signals and noises and statistics and shenanigans actually goes into detail about these kinds of super disasters, especially earthquakes.
I will of course be deleting this post and creating a gofundme for myself if any of this comes true in the immediate future and you all had better donate.
ShuaiGuy wrote:The last one and the first one. The article doesn't say "next several hundred years" it pins everything within the next 50. 1 in 3 to major earthquake within 50. 1 in 10 for the "big one". It also doesn't utilize statistics properly. You can't just divide all past earthquakes and then assume that the average holds true every time. It also reads like it assumes the kind of probabilities you get by pulling a card out of a deck of cards. First is 1/52, then 1/51, then 1/50. It doesn't work like that.
Quite frankly, our understanding of earthquakes is such that we can't make very accurate predictions at this point. Sometimes you get a person who has a totally new model that might predict one or two, but then it predicts earthquakes that never happen and doesn't predict earthquakes that do.
KleinerKiller wrote:I never thought I'd say this without a comically large gun to my head, but I really hope Shuai is right.
I live in Washington, west of the Cascades, smack in the middle of the suggested devastation zone, and my current life plans don't allow for me moving out of state until I'm in my early twenties. My parents will most likely be remaining here, and my sister's a wild card.
Emigrating to the UK (the only option that's likely to save me from the devastation and give me a comfortable place to live) is going to wreck my expenses if my calculations of what I'll have earned by then are correct. And I can't just go to the East Coast, both for storm-related reasons that have previously been covered and my general distaste for the region.
Basically, if it occurs within the article's projections, I might well be fucked.
Crimson847 wrote:KleinerKiller wrote:I never thought I'd say this without a comically large gun to my head, but I really hope Shuai is right.
I live in Washington, west of the Cascades, smack in the middle of the suggested devastation zone, and my current life plans don't allow for me moving out of state until I'm in my early twenties. My parents will most likely be remaining here, and my sister's a wild card.
Emigrating to the UK (the only option that's likely to save me from the devastation and give me a comfortable place to live) is going to wreck my expenses if my calculations of what I'll have earned by then are correct. And I can't just go to the East Coast, both for storm-related reasons that have previously been covered and my general distaste for the region.
Basically, if it occurs within the article's projections, I might well be fucked.
How far do you live from the coast, what is your house made out of, and when was it built?
ShuaiGuy wrote:KleinerKiller wrote:I never thought I'd say this without a comically large gun to my head, but I really hope Shuai is right.
HEY!!!!!!!!!!
And Jamish, we all know that death is better than living in Kansas. I don't even know why you're trying!
JamishT wrote:ShuaiGuy wrote:KleinerKiller wrote:I never thought I'd say this without a comically large gun to my head, but I really hope Shuai is right.
HEY!!!!!!!!!!
And Jamish, we all know that death is better than living in Kansas. I don't even know why you're trying!
Well that's weird, I didn't know I was trying to live in Kansas! I'm trying to live in Missouri!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests