Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'm already cross-eyed from spending the last week pushing to finish a big project and keep being vaguely bemused by basic human interaction, then this came up and I was completely lost. The rant was both necessary and entertaining. So: thank you.

The geotechnical/geological engineers have also been treating soils as fluids for years -- check out any papers by Oldrich Hungr or Stephen Evans on landslides. Neil Balmforth, a geologist/mathematician, has piles of papers on fluid dynamics of small grains (sands or glass beads).

As a physicist working in earth science, yes, it is really nice to finally have some more solid reasons behind treating soft soils as fluids besides "because it works," but I disagree with the summary's claim that the discovery will lead to a whole new approach to soil sciences since it's already been treated as true for ages.

Exactly! It's in the key words: "cause" is the underlaying geology/structures/faults/etc that made it possible for this chunk to fail, "trigger" is why it happened at this particular time. If a trigger didn't happen (the dam wasn't built), then something else would act as a trigger later. Yes, the exact nature of the outcome would be different due to the intensity & distribution of the triggering event and other complex interactions blah blah blah, but it still would've been an earthquake. One of the big landslide bloggers posted an informal response to the academic article the news stories are based on. I thought his point about an artificially-triggered earthquake having liability consequences was interesting. I don't know the stats on death & damage for this event, but it'd certainly be enough to bankrupt anyone who was found fully or partially responsible for the disasters. I can see the usual suspects of conspiracy-theorists calling foul if the dam-triggering-earthquake theory is rejected by other scientists. After all, it wouldn't have anything to do with evaluating theories based on observations; the scientists would be protecting the geological engineers/regional planners/etc from bankruptcy, right? ;)

There are two ways of detecting exoplanets:
1. Wobbles -- what you explained: watch a star for deviations in its orbit by observing tiny redshifts and blueshifts. Our own sun does a little jiggle thanks mostly to Jupiter.
2. Dimness -- what they did for this object. Watch a star for dimming as something passes in front of it, although you have to be careful of other causes of temporary decreases in luminescence (like sunspots).

In both cases, it really needs repeated observations over time to establish that it's an orbital event and not something random. In the good ol' days of exoplanet discovery when the equipment wasn't so hot & we expected to find planets pretty much like ours, it took a whole lot of observations before anyone was willing to take the risk of announcing a discovery. Now, with better equipment making it easier to detect hiccups in a star's routine and a more open attitude about how planets behave, discoveries are being announced a lot earlier in the observation process.

To be fair, TFA does give itself a whole lot of wiggle room in interpreting the data. It just fails to mention that follow-up observations aren't confirming the orbital parameters of the assumed planet.