4 ms·
Seems like a minor earthquake. Does it deserve top of HN?
by sidcool 1y ago
Seems like a minor earthquake. Does it deserve top of HN?
- BoredPositron 1y agoIt's gone sooner if you don't interact with the thread...
- tgsovlerkhgsel 1y agoIsn't this the opposite of how it works? My understanding there is some algorithm that severely downranks threads that get a lot of comments in relation to the upvote count.
- perching_aix 1y agoIs HN's content recommendation algorithm public?
- skylerwiernik 1y agoNot public, but some of the factors are listed here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html (q2)
- rbanffy 1y agoI would assume someone new to CA would find it concerning. It's fun to think about it - some Japanese people would move to CA just because of the more stable geology.
- bamboozled 1y agoWhy would Japanese people move to CA for the more stable geology ?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoJapan is one of the most seismically-active areas in the world. As a result, [modern] Japanese construction is incredibly resilient. I've never been in Tokyo, during a strong quake, but I'm told the skyscrapers wave around like drunken dancers.
- bamboozled 1y agoI live in Japan...I've never wanted to move to the USA because of seismic activity .
- rbanffy 1y agoI was making a joke, that even though CA is notoriously unstable and "waiting for The Big One", Japan is way more active.
- bamboozled 1y agooh right it sounded more like a statement, every time I'm in SF I worry about how unprepared everything seems.
- notmyjob 1y agoBecause there are no longer any other good reasons to move here.
- 0manrho 1y agoIt's a point of comparison to illustrate the differences. CA is seismically active, but not to the degree of Japan. Reading any further into it than that was clearly not the intent and would be foolish.
- roenxi 1y ago> The U.S. Geological Survey's most recent forecast, known as UCERF3 (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3), released in November 2013, estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 M or greater (i.e. equal to or greater than the 1994 Northridge earthquake) occurs about once every 6.7 years statewide. The same report also estimated there is a 7% probability that an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or greater will occur in the next 30 years somewhere along the San Andreas Fault. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_next_%22Big_One%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_next_%22... I question their research skills. I would avoid California if geology was my main motivator.
- kijin 1y agoThere is an 80% probability that an earthquake of magnitude 8-9 will occur in the Nankai trough (massive subduction zone along the Pacific coast of Japan) in the next 30 years. Yes, you read that correctly. Eighty percent. It's almost a certainty. San Andreas sounds like nothing by comparison, especially since it doesn't pose as much of a tsunami risk.
- dredmorbius 1y agoIt's also worth noting that a mag 8 is about the maximum expected from the San Andreas fault, a strike-slip fault, and most quakes come in well under that. The two largest quakes I'm aware of, the 1906 San Francisco and 1857 Fort Tejon quakes, were mag 7.8 and 7.9 respectively. Significant damage can be experienced starting at about mag 6, though that tends to be pretty specific (individual structures, often pre-dating earthquake codes, and locations on poorly-suited terrain such as riverbottoms, reclaimed wetlands, or sand). Widespread general damage would only be experienced with larger quakes (mag 7--8). Japan has a significantly higher risk of mag 8--9 quakes. The 2011 Tōhoku quake was a magnitude 9, which is 100 times more powerful than a mag 7, and over 100,000 times more powerful than this morning's temblor in Berkeley. Japanese faults include subduction zones and considerable tsunami risk. Similar risks exist between the California-Oregon border through to British Columbia on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and could similarly product a mag 9 event. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCERF3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCERF3> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone>
- ChipopLeMoral 1y agoThe votes seem to suggest it
- AlecSchueler 1y agoIt's notable for people in California where a lot of HN users are based.
- sethammons 1y agoThe point is it is not notable. It is business as usual. These happen multiple times a year. It is nearly as notable as a rainy day in LA in the summer.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoI must have been confused by all of the people in this thread publicly noting it and explaining how they perceived it.
- sethammons 1y agowe are talking about relative notability. Seeing an apple or orange for the first time is notable to that person. But not to the others living in an orchard. This quake is a tad more notable than rain in LA in the summer. In other words, not very notable. That doesn't make it zero, just very low.
- xeromal 1y agoDo you mean Lousiana because rains come in the winter here in socal. lol. A summer rain would be notable.
- kstrauser 1y agoShaking like this does not happen multiple times per year, at least in the Bay Area. Last night’s was the strongest quake I’ve experienced since moving here.
- TinkersW 1y agoNo it isn't, I grew up in NorCal with earthquakes, a 4.6 is a complete nothing burger, you shrug and continue about your day.
- 0manrho 1y agoIt is a minor earthquake, especially for a region with generally high standards and tolerances for actual earthquakes. It's enough to certainly notice (if you're awake) and make people look at each other like "Whoa, neat" but that should be the start and end of it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jquery 1y agoIt’s the strongest shake the area has felt in a decade. I think it’s just the community having a bit of fun.