Interesting Links for 18-04-2018

[andrewducker]

San Francisco’s Seismic Gamble

(tags: earthquake sanfrancisco architecture safety usa )

Game "Celeste" Taught Fans And Its Own Creator To Take Better Care Of Themselves

(tags: depression anxiety mentalhealth game viaSwampers )

Gene affects how some women store fat -- and ups their diabetes risk

(tags: women fat genetics diabetes )

What the hell are Labour up to on Syria?

(tags: Syria Labour politics )

Comments

[cahwyguy]

Given the San Francisco story, you should read this: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-hayward-fault-20180417-htmlstory.html

The San Andreas long has been the fault many Californians feared most, having unleashed the great 1906 earthquake that led to San Francisco’s destruction 112 years ago Wednesday.

But new research shows that a much less well-known fault, running under the heart of the East Bay, poses a greater danger.

A landmark report by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that at least 800 people could be killed and 18,000 more injured in a hypothetical magnitude 7 earthquake on the Hayward fault centered below Oakland.


Hundreds more could die from fire following an earthquake along the 52-mile fault. More than 400 fires could ignite, burning the equivalent of 52,000 single-family homes, and a lack of water for firefighters caused by old pipes shattering underground could make matters worse, said geophysicist Ken Hudnut, the USGS’ science adviser for risk reduction.

“This fault is what we sort of call a tectonic time bomb,” USGS earthquake geologist emeritus David Schwartz said. “It’s just waiting to go off.”

[benwerd]

I pretty much literally live on the Hayward Fault. Yaaaaay

And by yaaaay I mean, oh no

[danieldwilliam]

I think the Labour Party have a bit of a strategic and strategy problem on Syria but I don't think it's a very huge one.

The party membership, former membership and keen supporters are still split and cross about Iraq and military intervention more broadly.

A minority of supporters are against the USA and the UK's foreign policy and imperial past and against Israel's policy in Palistine and happy to take a "my enemy's enemy is my friend approach. This makes it difficult for them to fully get behind the idea that Assad is bastard. Supporters from Corbyn's area of the party are more likely to be thinking this.

There's a bit of confussion about the aims of the intervention - is it to remove Assad, promote a particular faction in the opposition, bring some relief to ordinary Syrians who are caught up on the conflict, prevent Assad using chemical weapons, or to deter other people from using chemical weapons (against us).

The public are sympathetic to ordinary Syrians but sceptical about our ability to do much to help them and reluctant to commit the sort of resources and efforts needed to make a difference to them and reluctant to accept the political consequences of getting involved too much in Syria.

Corbyn seems to be not great at managing people or the Parliamentary process.

This makes it a bit difficult for them to articulate and follow through on a clear policy.

But I don't think it's a big deal for them because a) I don't think the British electorate cares very deeply about Syria and b) the Tories are a bit muddled about it themselves (in particular the exact aims of bombing Syria) and suffering from having reversed their position on whether the Commons should vote on military action or not.

Labour a bit confused about thing everyone is confused about - shock!