3 ms·

There is also an effect being caused by social media and video sharing - loss of context. The entire Himalayan foothills area (which includes what, at least 6

by lazide 1mo ago

There is also an effect being caused by social media and video sharing - loss of context. The entire Himalayan foothills area (which includes what, at least 6 different major countries off the top of my head) are potentially impacted by something like this. Most of these areas are barely surviving, and extremely poor, and often very disconnected from the rest of the country due to the terrain. Realistically, what do you think they could have done to prevent this, given the likely 1/1000 or lower chance it would happen to them specifically?

srean 1mo ago
> Realistically, what do you think they could have done to prevent this, given the likely 1/1000 or lower chance it would happen to them specifically? Use science based zoning and not build or populate known hazardous areas.
- lazide 1mo ago
  What does that concretely actually mean? There are only a handful of areas on the planet without known disaster exposure risk. Maybe zero, really.
  - srean 1mo ago
    That's quite hyperbolic. Zoning is not an all or nothing. There is a lot of land that does not have such extreme dangers. Of course, some countries have it worse than others. Japan would be one such. Good or bad, the population has been on the decline there for unrelated reasons. For earthquakes this is what my country looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India This is at a very broad resolution. One can refine to make this more local. Earthquakes are just one type of hazard. One has to take other hazards into account.
    - newsclues 1mo ago
      Your trying to control geography with policy. But not considering why people build communities in valleys. More geography and less policy knowledge is required
      - srean 1mo ago
        That's not quite it. Its about policies that take into account the cost of future events and balance it against the ease of building. The future needs to be priced in, in today's prices. Regulations (for example, you cannot build unless and insurer is willing to insure your property against known local hazards) and enforcing the regulations can make that happen. Often we move in the other direction by adopting policies that encourages mispricing.
        lazide 1mo ago
        Tell me you have zero idea about the region without telling me you have zero idea about the region. Insurers? Building code enforcement? Are you for real?
        srean 1mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49463187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49463187 Since you are making this personal I am not going to respond to you any further. Sorry.
    - lazide 1mo ago
      You’re the one making it all or nothing. give some concrete examples to prove me wrong, or stop bs’ing. don’t forget major earthquakes (most of California and the entire Pacific Rim, to name some well known areas), floods, serious droughts, tornados, hurricanes/cyclones, fires, subsidence (into the ocean or sinkholes), volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and lahars. It’s about frequency and preparation, but it’s never perfectly safe. No building code handles everything, it’s impossible. Hazards are somewhat mitigated or ignored, not entirely dealt with.
      - srean 1mo ago
        Not sure what you mean by give concrete examples, when my position is normative. I am not sure where you are getting "all or nothing" in my comments. If you are interested, you can read my other comments on this story to get perhaps a fuller picture of my position. I understand my comments have worked you up, but I am not sure why. If you have lost people in this incident, I am genuinely sorry for your loss and can understand emotional outbursts. If you have dear ones engaged in practices that I am disapproving of, well, then in that case too I can understand your displeasure. If you thought that I am claiming that adhering to my position will ensure that future death tolls would magically become zero then that's uncharitable reading. My position is quite simple, price in the hazards based on scientific hazard assessment. Enforce policies that encourages correct pricing, rather than part take in corrupt practices that encourages mispricing of the kind that benefits the political class and builder class nexus that operate from the safety of being out of range. This can be done through regulations. For example, we have mandatory third party accident insurance for vehicles. That's an example of a regulation that encourages pricing in the hazards. Hazard zoning is not all or nothing of the type (a) permitted and (b) not permitted. It is about assigning areas to different grades of quantized hazards. See my other comment for example of such zoning for Earthquake hazard. With hazard priced in, the markets would mostly take care of where to build new homes and what kinds to build. In Himalayan states of India we have the opposite going on. Politicians, in concert with the enforcement bodies that are peopled by their flunkies, encourage illegal constructions in known hazardous areas, deregulates zoning so that dangerous areas are cheaper to own property on in exchange of kickbacks from the builders. > don’t forget major earthquakes ... I am not forgetting that for sure but not sure what your point is. If it's -- look here are other dangerously built up areas in the US -- then yes I agree. There was corruption involved in managing the levies that were supposed to protect New Orleans too. > or stop bs’ing And yes there is no need to be rude. It does not make your point stronger.
- vintermann 1mo ago
  People live there already. How do you propose to move them and support them in the place you moved them to? Please don't make me break out the Aquaman joke.
  - srean 1mo ago
    I am not talking to this specific case but about a general phenomenon that I see in my country, where people are being incentivized to build on hazardous areas by way of corruption. Depending on the scale one could incentivized people to move to safer areas.
    - vintermann 1mo ago
      The threat of death from flooding is already a pretty good incentive, people accept the risk when it's the best option they have.
      - srean 1mo ago
        For some who are very poor yes I agree. But many are baited in by corrupt policies by a nexus of politicians and contractors/builders -- cheap land, cheap permits.
    - srean 1mo ago
      Arggh! excuse my autocorrect induced typos. incentivize. talking about
- mr_toad 1mo ago
  And stop bailing out people who build in known danger areas where they can’t get insurance.
- user00005 1mo ago
  > not build or populate known hazardous areas. The ultra narrow valley surrounded by steep walls should set off one's self preservation senses. It did when I saw the first video from this disaster. Normally you don't hang out too long in a couloir.
  - lazide 1mo ago
    One way, or another, anyway.

by lazide 1mo ago

srean 1mo ago

> Realistically, what do you think they could have done to prevent this, given the likely 1/1000 or lower chance it would happen to them specifically? Use science based zoning and not build or populate known hazardous areas.

lazide 1mo ago
What does that concretely actually mean? There are only a handful of areas on the planet without known disaster exposure risk. Maybe zero, really.
- srean 1mo ago
  That's quite hyperbolic. Zoning is not an all or nothing. There is a lot of land that does not have such extreme dangers. Of course, some countries have it worse than others. Japan would be one such. Good or bad, the population has been on the decline there for unrelated reasons. For earthquakes this is what my country looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India This is at a very broad resolution. One can refine to make this more local. Earthquakes are just one type of hazard. One has to take other hazards into account.
  - newsclues 1mo ago
    Your trying to control geography with policy. But not considering why people build communities in valleys. More geography and less policy knowledge is required
    - srean 1mo ago
      That's not quite it. Its about policies that take into account the cost of future events and balance it against the ease of building. The future needs to be priced in, in today's prices. Regulations (for example, you cannot build unless and insurer is willing to insure your property against known local hazards) and enforcing the regulations can make that happen. Often we move in the other direction by adopting policies that encourages mispricing.
      - lazide 1mo ago
        Tell me you have zero idea about the region without telling me you have zero idea about the region. Insurers? Building code enforcement? Are you for real?
        srean 1mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49463187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49463187 Since you are making this personal I am not going to respond to you any further. Sorry.
  - lazide 1mo ago
    You’re the one making it all or nothing. give some concrete examples to prove me wrong, or stop bs’ing. don’t forget major earthquakes (most of California and the entire Pacific Rim, to name some well known areas), floods, serious droughts, tornados, hurricanes/cyclones, fires, subsidence (into the ocean or sinkholes), volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and lahars. It’s about frequency and preparation, but it’s never perfectly safe. No building code handles everything, it’s impossible. Hazards are somewhat mitigated or ignored, not entirely dealt with.
    - srean 1mo ago
      Not sure what you mean by give concrete examples, when my position is normative. I am not sure where you are getting "all or nothing" in my comments. If you are interested, you can read my other comments on this story to get perhaps a fuller picture of my position. I understand my comments have worked you up, but I am not sure why. If you have lost people in this incident, I am genuinely sorry for your loss and can understand emotional outbursts. If you have dear ones engaged in practices that I am disapproving of, well, then in that case too I can understand your displeasure. If you thought that I am claiming that adhering to my position will ensure that future death tolls would magically become zero then that's uncharitable reading. My position is quite simple, price in the hazards based on scientific hazard assessment. Enforce policies that encourages correct pricing, rather than part take in corrupt practices that encourages mispricing of the kind that benefits the political class and builder class nexus that operate from the safety of being out of range. This can be done through regulations. For example, we have mandatory third party accident insurance for vehicles. That's an example of a regulation that encourages pricing in the hazards. Hazard zoning is not all or nothing of the type (a) permitted and (b) not permitted. It is about assigning areas to different grades of quantized hazards. See my other comment for example of such zoning for Earthquake hazard. With hazard priced in, the markets would mostly take care of where to build new homes and what kinds to build. In Himalayan states of India we have the opposite going on. Politicians, in concert with the enforcement bodies that are peopled by their flunkies, encourage illegal constructions in known hazardous areas, deregulates zoning so that dangerous areas are cheaper to own property on in exchange of kickbacks from the builders. > don’t forget major earthquakes ... I am not forgetting that for sure but not sure what your point is. If it's -- look here are other dangerously built up areas in the US -- then yes I agree. There was corruption involved in managing the levies that were supposed to protect New Orleans too. > or stop bs’ing And yes there is no need to be rude. It does not make your point stronger.
vintermann 1mo ago
People live there already. How do you propose to move them and support them in the place you moved them to? Please don't make me break out the Aquaman joke.
- srean 1mo ago
  I am not talking to this specific case but about a general phenomenon that I see in my country, where people are being incentivized to build on hazardous areas by way of corruption. Depending on the scale one could incentivized people to move to safer areas.
  - vintermann 1mo ago
    The threat of death from flooding is already a pretty good incentive, people accept the risk when it's the best option they have.
    - srean 1mo ago
      For some who are very poor yes I agree. But many are baited in by corrupt policies by a nexus of politicians and contractors/builders -- cheap land, cheap permits.
  - srean 1mo ago
    Arggh! excuse my autocorrect induced typos. incentivize. talking about
mr_toad 1mo ago
And stop bailing out people who build in known danger areas where they can’t get insurance.
user00005 1mo ago
> not build or populate known hazardous areas. The ultra narrow valley surrounded by steep walls should set off one's self preservation senses. It did when I saw the first video from this disaster. Normally you don't hang out too long in a couloir.
- lazide 1mo ago
  One way, or another, anyway.