earthquakes

So you'd have to basically tile the fault with drill holes and then do whatever to produce earthquakes.

As you say, 10^{9} would require hundreds of years of earthquakes, and thus is not a particularly compelling example.

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

Japan engineers tunnels -- one longer than the Chunnel -- to survive 9+ earthquakes and they do.

Interestingly, though, there are other types of earthquakes that _do_ release accumulated elastic strain over large areas.

How strong is the justification to treat the sequence of earthquakes as a sequence of independent identically distributed random numbers?

Is there any work on inducing earthquakes to relieve stress before it builds to catastrophe levels?

I'd imagine they have gigatons of data on earthquakes, so validating the model must be fairly straightforward.

The Cascadia plate interface itself does have quite regular 'slow earthquakes'[1] at the lower edge of the locked zone, where M~6 earthquakes occur over about a week and a half, and don't produce much shaking.

For example, Taleb is already measuring earthquakes by the energy released.

I am poking fun, and I'm not discounting the possibility that AIs could be dangerous (as could people, viruses and earthquakes).

The Chile and Haïti earthquakes of 2010 showed that there is enormous scope for doing so; how can we do better?

These "slow earthquakes" _do_ release significant amounts of accumulated strain.

This is how "magnitude" is defined for earthquakes.

Sometimes they trigger "normal" earthquakes and vice versa.

What happens if we measure an earthquake instead by the amount of energy it releases?" make me conclude that the author of the critique understands neither earthquakes nor Taleb.

Earthquakes are, for now, impossible to predict so there is little forewarning (and not for the lack of people trying).

Earthquakes are among the numerous scenarios simulated.