Sir_Toadington

Wait, Princeton lets you take number theory as a first year “elective?” My university doesn’t even let you THINK about taking number theory until you’re in your third year either majoring or minoring in math

Nisqually was a 6.8 magnitude. Cascadia is estimated to be about 9 I believe. Formula for energy released in an earthquake [J] is:

Energy released=10^4.4+1.5*m. Plugging in magnitudes gives 3.98(10)¹⁴ J and 7.94(10)¹⁷ J, respectively. So a Cascadia event would be just under 2000 times as strong as the Nisqually quake.

Seismic building codes are updated regularly but you can expect to see major infrastructure damage, both from direct and indirect results of the quake. I am not a civil or structural engineer

Fuck you. Bear down!

I’d actually say that’s a yes and no situation. The MAX DOES have an inherently unstable airframe and although it is good practice, especially for a commercial jet to be designed to have a negative pitching moment, it’s not a be all end all of plane design. That said, if it is not feasible there is nothing wrong with implementing software to adjust for it. It’s done all the time in military aircraft (e.g. the B2 stealth bomber design is for pure stealth but as a result has some of the worst aerodynamic characteristics imaginable and wouldn’t even make it off a runway without crashing if it weren’t for software)

Exponential scales can be pretty wild, for sure. This is nowhere near my area and would be better answered by u/WaQuakePrepare but since the strength is just a measure of energy, I do not believe it is directly related to the depth at which it occurs, although there may be some correlation.