I agree with others saying it seems plausible, and almost self-evident. Didn't they tell us that the Earth rang like a bell after the big Indonesian and Japanes

I agree with others saying it seems plausible, and almost self-evident. Didn't they tell us that the Earth rang like a bell after the big Indonesian and Japanese earthquakes (where "they" are scientists being interpreted by journalists). All that dissipated energy can impact other faults. This seemed like a popularization of the recent science behind it. Edited to add: there is also the speculation that the massive volcanism of the Deccan Traps in India were triggered by the Chicxulub impact event, because they were antipodal and roughly the same time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps] My issue with the content is that it's not clear whether the author is a scientist, nor whether all statements are based on scientific articles. It starts off sounding like popularizing established science, but then makes some claims without giving sources, even informal. For example, the graphic with the "+ pattern" says it is based on analysis, but doesn't say whose. Is it from a scientific article, some other article or the author's own speculation, any would be fine if it were explained. There is a "Methods" section at the end, but it isn't clear from that either: " The Sumatra data was limited to M5.5+ earthquakes, and was collected worldwide." There's a reason your English teacher told you not to use the passive voice! In general I found the graphics and animations to be clear and informative, and the multi-media aspect well done. But there were some annoying distractions: first, the vertically scrolling text sometimes covered the key part of the graphic, like I scrolled past the right location without knowing where it was. There needs to be "sticky" places where the scrolling stops to present the next piece of information. More critically, when the dots representing the CA quakes are moved from the map to the timeline, they loose their size. Since the whole point is to count significant quakes over time, this is a net loss of understanding and source of confusion. The fact that the one key 5.5 quake later has to be highlighted (and I almost missed it in the scrolling), shows how important it would be to keep the size. And here the argument is weak because the 5.5 quake was nearby and the next day, so not really different from an aftershock--it's like the change of graphic is used to hide the weakness of the argument.