I've experienced many earthquakes in my lifetime including a 7.1 and a 7.5. Videos taken during the quake in Bangkok definitely indicate more than a shiver.
During my lifetime I've experienced a number of big earthquakes on the island of Hawaii.
The scariest was a 7.7 that generated a local tsunami close to 50 feet high. Luckily only 2 fatalities from the tsunami. The seashore close to the epicenter subsided 12 feet. Years later I went fishing in the area where former cliffs were now at sea level.
One of my best friends in Thailand is a retired project manager. I've been on his job sites and watched him in action. He would not allow any deviation from the construction plans. However, I would say he is the exception rather tan the rule.
Just because the information was not acted upon does not excuse the breech of security.
Why do you think Hillary Clinton destroyed her cellphone and other incriminating evidence? Because she violated the rules. Convenience never trumps security.
It is. But the argument might go like this. If it were designed properly it would have withstood the earthquake. The question is who would buy that argument.
"unless the collapse resulted from the employer's fault," will be the issue. The contractor will argue "poor design" was the cause. Either this will dispute will go on and on or the contractor will declare bankruptcy.
Technology is wonderful as long as there are no glitches or breakdowns. Hackers and cyber criminals are becoming more sophisticated and attacks are occurring more often.
What proof do you have that the system was vulnerable? Hackers have breached some of the most sophisticated websites. No one's information is completely secure. AI will only make the situation worse.
ve
Every day 10,000 Americans turn 65. Cutting staff is definitely going to reduce the quality of service.
Only brilliant people, not simpletons, can figure out where the middle is.
If this administration was serious about reducing the national debt they would be closing all the loopholes in the tax code. It is a fallacy that tax cuts lead to increased revenues.