I think we might be seeing the common "media focus" effect. There is a magnitude 6+ earthquake somewhere in the world about every 2 to 3 days. But, because of the Venezuela quakes (and there are about a dozen to twenty of those in a given year, on average), we will likely be seeing coverage of many more of the 6+ quakes than normal. The fact that more quakes now get captured by some camera somewhere just drives it all the more.

 

 

 

 

oh my...

 

Manhattan high-rise unstable and still moving after columns buckle, officials say

​

Most of 42nd and 43rd Streets, between 1st and 3rd Avenues, have been closed to pedestrians and vehicles.

 

 

Whole NATION in ruins???

ALL of China is in ruins because of thirteen earthquakes?

China is a HUGE country -- pretty much identical to the U.S.. It is also very active seismically and sees thousands of earthquakes a year that are M3 or more and about one M4+ earthquake on any given day, an M5+ quake every two or three weeks, and an M6+ quake every three or four months.

I watched the video for just a bit and immediately noticed a few things: First, it's obviously AI generated. Second, despite the headline, they are talking about 13 earthquakes in two days, not one day, and most of the earthquakes they mention were below M4. Didn't see much point to keep watching more AI-generated overhyped sensationalized slop.

 

I watch it at times for a counterpoint to the CCP generated slop where the death toll is always under 30. This channel is your classic AI directed youtube news with a view point.

This is not a new channel, they've had the same type of material and playbook for at least 6 years, before the current AI slop.
https://chinaobserver.co/

 

Once I determine that a news "source" is unreliable (as in, wildly unreliable, every news outlet has basic reliability issues that seem endemic to the breed), I see no point in following it. Two crap-filled stories from opposite ends of the spectrum, neither of which have much touch with reality, do not average out to useful information. At least not in my book. Averaging mainstream sources from multiple places can filter out quite a bit of the noise because the things they all agree on are likely to be closer to being accurate while things that only one or two report are less reliable and/or reflect an editorial bias. Admittedly, doing this in the case of China or other tightly-closed societies is easier said than done, but sources like Reuters, the BBC, the Associated Press, are generally good starting points.

 

Once I determine that a news "source" is unreliable (as in, wildly unreliable, every news outlet has basic reliability issues that seem endemic to the breed), I see no point in following it. Two crap-filled stories from opposite ends of the spectrum, neither of which have much touch with reality, do not average out to useful information. At least not in my book. Averaging mainstream sources from multiple places can filter out quite a bit of the noise because the things they all agree on are likely to be closer to being accurate while things that only one or two report are less reliable and/or reflect an editorial bias. Admittedly, doing this in the case of China or other tightly-closed societies is easier said than done, but sources like Reuters, the BBC, the Associated Press, are generally good starting points.

I follow all of those too but they all need to be accredited per the CCP for in country reporting. Sources like CO are low confidence, biased points of information but the can be useful to get a inside story where normal sources are restricted.

Sources like Reuters, the BBC, the Associated Press have often used video clips from CO in their reporting.

 

Sources like Reuters, the BBC, the Associated Press have often used video clips from CO in their reporting.

That's not surprising, nor even a bad thing provided they do some level of vetting and cross-checking before using it. I'm sure that they all would insist that they do, but whether they actually do or not is a different matter. Certainly there have been many instances where they (generic 'they', to encompass most news organizations, regardless of media) where their "triple verification" policy ran with a story that demonstrably came from a single, bad source with glaring errors that should have been caught by any of a number of people in the editing and story prep phases.

 

This needs to stop.

 

 

 

 

Spring of ~1972 heading south on the Interstate in Michigan the cars in front of us suddenly started slamming on their brakes and swerving right and left. There was quite a dust cloud ahead of us and a sudden traffic jam. The concrete slab of the oncoming Interstate section had frost heaved up what looked to be ~12" above the slab we were on (or our slab had settled). Cars had been hitting the ~12" "curb" head on and wrecking their front suspensions. Created quite a junk yard parking lot. Luckily, we were forewarned and able to avoid it. What a mess...

 

 

 

Not sure how it's an unmitigated disaster; icebergs flipping are fairly common and almost never cause damage. But nice video. I wonder how the camera came to be positioned to catch it. Pure luck" That would be an indicator that these events aren't super rare. Or is it a network of cameras all along the coast, perhaps specifically to monitor iceberg flows off the coast?