> There wasn't any need for fancier sensors and data recording technology than was used.
Obviously there was. A common refrain in all the civil engineering discussions I'm reading is that this inspection report was in bottom 10%, perhaps bottom 1%, but not 0.00001% off the charts atypical.
It's quite apparent that we need more dimensions of data—if for nothing else than to make it crystal clear when a situation is approaching disaster. We also still do not know what actually happened (and may never know), so for post-mortems this sort of thing seems important.
What simple steps can be done to reduce the probability of this happening again by 1,000x+?
What if it wasn't atypical because there's lots of buildings showing damage like this? Coastal Florida, especially; is harsh environment for building and they've had 40+ years of "slap it together as fast and cheap as possible" construction there.
It don't matter how much data you have about the tidal wave bearing down on you; you has to move out of its way regardless.
Obviously there was. A common refrain in all the civil engineering discussions I'm reading is that this inspection report was in bottom 10%, perhaps bottom 1%, but not 0.00001% off the charts atypical.
It's quite apparent that we need more dimensions of data—if for nothing else than to make it crystal clear when a situation is approaching disaster. We also still do not know what actually happened (and may never know), so for post-mortems this sort of thing seems important.
What simple steps can be done to reduce the probability of this happening again by 1,000x+?