3 ms·

Do you have background in the field of giant power supply fault tolerance backup mishap management strategies, or something? Or are you just stating and assumin

Do you have background in the field of giant power supply fault tolerance backup mishap management strategies, or something? Or are you just stating and assuming all of this is obvious, covered by standard planning, instead of easy to say in hindsight? Cause you're making a lot of statements, saying it is such, without backing it up. Maybe it is super obvious, but personally I'm impressed by the strategies that were in place.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Would you not prioritise an airport, a hospital, the railway, over residential areas? Do you not think that trains should be able to resume ASAP? Do you not think that "it never happened before" is not a valid reason to be unprepared? Do you not think that "we never had to use it before" is not a valid reason to explain why an emergency generator might not work when needed? What backing up do you need?
- Zenst 7y ago
  "Would you not prioritise an airport, a hospital, the railway, over residential areas?" Yes and they do. As mentioned, things get added to the grid all the time, case of the airport was that it was not on a priority list. Yes that is an oversight, but who's fault and accountability we do not know. The onus would of been in the airport to inform the power distribution and if that failed to happen then the airport would be the ones with the hands up, if they was and the distribution failed to add it, then their hand would go up. But hospitals as I mentioned operate and a designed and planned for such issues with them having backup power supplies. Which is the solution for many installations as many will not have or justify the cost of being upon their own distribution spur. As for the "we never had to use it before" that's down the testing and covered in previous comments fairly well without repeating it again. But if you wish to focus upon being able to point a finger at somebody and say it is there fault, then fine. But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life. After all, power cuts today are not that common on this scale, decades past and in less developed countries they would be so common that they wouldn't even make the news. But remember, if the weather forecaster says it will not rain and you go out and a light shower makes you wet - would the forecast be wrong or would we have the mentality to go, that mistake was within acceptable parameters and just one of those things. It gets down to what we are used to and what we accept. So yes, I get that blame need to be lain in many eye's but is that fair all the time? But then - nothing is perfect - better to focus on getting closer to perfection than expending energy stagnating as too busy pointing the finger.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    You protest a bit too much at this point, methinks. I am commenting that the scale of the disruption resulting from (only) a 5% drop does not seem reasonable and that some of the issues should have been better handled or avoided altogether. > But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life That's a personal attack quite out of order.
    - KyleJ61782 7y ago
      > > But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life > That's a personal attack quite out of order. Not really. It's just a societal commentary on how we've conditioned ourselves by the media we consume into passing quick blame instead of taking a slow, reasoned approach to analyzing the event, seeing the compounding factors at stake and only in the face of gross negligence assigning blame.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        It is a personal attack and it is not what I have written so also misrepresent my comments. Neither of which are acceptable. > seeing the compounding factors at stake and only in the face of gross negligence assigning blame. You are entitled to have your views. Claiming that there is no blame to assign until it reaches criminal liability is rather odd, though.
  - sergioj97 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure there is a lot of people who is interested to know if this is someone's fault, and I don't think it has anything to do with how media covers this issues. I think it's a good thing, in fact. This failure may be within acceptable parameters and it may be simply meaningless to try to find someone truly responsible for it. But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not. I understand that it's interesting to analyze what happened from a more technical perspective, but of course a proper investigation has to be conducted to find the responsible if there happens to be one (or more).
- tripzilch 7y ago
  I am NOT a safety engineer, and I'm aware how complex that field is, so no, I don't believe that my personal hunches about what might have been a good idea intuitively are somehow better than these people whose actual job it is. Hence my question about your background. But you implicitly answered that, too.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Would you not prioritise an airport, a hospital, the railway, over residential areas? Do you not think that trains should be able to resume ASAP? Do you not think that "it never happened before" is not a valid reason to be unprepared? Do you not think that "we never had to use it before" is not a valid reason to explain why an emergency generator might not work when needed? What backing up do you need?

Zenst 7y ago
"Would you not prioritise an airport, a hospital, the railway, over residential areas?" Yes and they do. As mentioned, things get added to the grid all the time, case of the airport was that it was not on a priority list. Yes that is an oversight, but who's fault and accountability we do not know. The onus would of been in the airport to inform the power distribution and if that failed to happen then the airport would be the ones with the hands up, if they was and the distribution failed to add it, then their hand would go up. But hospitals as I mentioned operate and a designed and planned for such issues with them having backup power supplies. Which is the solution for many installations as many will not have or justify the cost of being upon their own distribution spur. As for the "we never had to use it before" that's down the testing and covered in previous comments fairly well without repeating it again. But if you wish to focus upon being able to point a finger at somebody and say it is there fault, then fine. But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life. After all, power cuts today are not that common on this scale, decades past and in less developed countries they would be so common that they wouldn't even make the news. But remember, if the weather forecaster says it will not rain and you go out and a light shower makes you wet - would the forecast be wrong or would we have the mentality to go, that mistake was within acceptable parameters and just one of those things. It gets down to what we are used to and what we accept. So yes, I get that blame need to be lain in many eye's but is that fair all the time? But then - nothing is perfect - better to focus on getting closer to perfection than expending energy stagnating as too busy pointing the finger.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  You protest a bit too much at this point, methinks. I am commenting that the scale of the disruption resulting from (only) a 5% drop does not seem reasonable and that some of the issues should have been better handled or avoided altogether. > But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life That's a personal attack quite out of order.
  - KyleJ61782 7y ago
    > > But I and I'm sure many others would not be focusing upon that, though I can appreciate that mentality due to the way media/tabloids cover such and all issues in life > That's a personal attack quite out of order. Not really. It's just a societal commentary on how we've conditioned ourselves by the media we consume into passing quick blame instead of taking a slow, reasoned approach to analyzing the event, seeing the compounding factors at stake and only in the face of gross negligence assigning blame.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      It is a personal attack and it is not what I have written so also misrepresent my comments. Neither of which are acceptable. > seeing the compounding factors at stake and only in the face of gross negligence assigning blame. You are entitled to have your views. Claiming that there is no blame to assign until it reaches criminal liability is rather odd, though.
- sergioj97 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure there is a lot of people who is interested to know if this is someone's fault, and I don't think it has anything to do with how media covers this issues. I think it's a good thing, in fact. This failure may be within acceptable parameters and it may be simply meaningless to try to find someone truly responsible for it. But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not. I understand that it's interesting to analyze what happened from a more technical perspective, but of course a proper investigation has to be conducted to find the responsible if there happens to be one (or more).
tripzilch 7y ago
I am NOT a safety engineer, and I'm aware how complex that field is, so no, I don't believe that my personal hunches about what might have been a good idea intuitively are somehow better than these people whose actual job it is. Hence my question about your background. But you implicitly answered that, too.