"My cat walked across the keyboard right before the large earthquake" is not statistically significant.
For example this study found 2 out of 3 major earthquakes studied had similar precursor events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14747...
It’s not consistent, but it’s more than a one off correlation.
Earthquake Prediction is filled with cranks. To deal with the issue, there is a neutral set of criteria for "how to test a prediction theory" which involves making predictions in advance with a clear description of what types of events match the predictions and likelihood of event. Geologists can then compare a series of predictions and their outcomes to what would be expected based on historic patterns. Math then allows one to determine if the prediction theory is better than random guessing.
No predictions have yet been better than random guessing.