> The longer I am alive the more I learn about how much of human civilization depends on good faith and trust.
That's one way to look at it. The other way is that it depends on incentive.
> that bringing a power plant online is a dangerous process
Not really. Power plants are connected and disconnected from the grid several times each day.
> You have to spin up the power plant and make sure that you are in phase with the grid before connecting your power output
This is done by computer in all cases, and it's incredibly fast and easy to do so. Especially considering we're only dealing with 60Hz here. This only applies to certain types of power plants, solar plants have entirely different interconnection considerations.
> There is a serious risk that a single power plant could cause systemic damage to many devices in a region's grid but for the entire history of the US
There is serious risk that a single tree branch could cause a system wide blackout for a major portion of the US. [1]
> we have just assumed that anyone with tens of millions of dollars to invest in a power plant is just too profit-driven to pull off anything like that.
Breakers and automatic protection devices respond with incredible speed and are typically controlled by an external agency operating at a State or Regional level.
> If the last few years (decades it seems) have taught me anything, it's that we have to reevaluate many of the assumptions we have been holding about reality and our peers. From the Target/Home Depot/Equifax breaches to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica fiasco, we have just been way too lucky and way too trusting.
Relative to what? Fraud and theft will always be factors in a functioning society. Is the total value extracted by newer frauds increasing faster than our global GDP?
> I never thought the world would put so much trust in a system created by and for the US armed forces.
What are the alternatives? The world putting it's trust in a commercial system? We'd just be trading one set of known issues with another.
> That's one way to look at it. The other way is that it depends on incentive.
The entirety of modern economic and psychological theory can be reduced to "it depends on incentives." That's utterly unhelpful.
> Not really. Power plants are connected and disconnected from the grid several times each day.
I said "bringing a power plant online." You said "connected and disconnected from the grid." They're not even remotely the same thing: the latter is a tiny step in implementing the former.
> This is done by computer in all cases, and it's incredibly fast and easy to do so. Especially considering we're only dealing with 60Hz here. This only applies to certain types of power plants, solar plants have entirely different interconnection considerations.
Uhm... what? Power flow adjustments have been "done by computers" since at least the 1970s and the frequency is only relevant in so much as it sets physical limits on how fast geographically distributed hardware can respond to changes in the system. It doesn't really matter what the frequency is, as long as everyone agrees, the system will be fine.
> There is serious risk that a single tree branch could cause a system wide blackout for a major portion of the US. [1]
Are you arguing with me or agreeing?
> Breakers and automatic protection devices respond with incredible speed and are typically controlled by an external agency operating at a State or Regional level.
> Relative to what? Fraud and theft will always be factors in a functioning society. Is the total value extracted by newer frauds increasing faster than our global GDP?
Relative to where we were less than a decade ago, when Facebook was nothing more than some Ivy League hook up site.
> What are the alternatives? The world putting it's trust in a commercial system? We'd just be trading one set of known issues with another.
The alternative is fucking vigilance. Vigilance of tradeoffs. Vigilance of bad faith actors. Vigilance of the legislative branch. Vigilance of our public servants.
That's one way to look at it. The other way is that it depends on incentive.
> that bringing a power plant online is a dangerous process
Not really. Power plants are connected and disconnected from the grid several times each day.
> You have to spin up the power plant and make sure that you are in phase with the grid before connecting your power output
This is done by computer in all cases, and it's incredibly fast and easy to do so. Especially considering we're only dealing with 60Hz here. This only applies to certain types of power plants, solar plants have entirely different interconnection considerations.
> There is a serious risk that a single power plant could cause systemic damage to many devices in a region's grid but for the entire history of the US
There is serious risk that a single tree branch could cause a system wide blackout for a major portion of the US. [1]
> we have just assumed that anyone with tens of millions of dollars to invest in a power plant is just too profit-driven to pull off anything like that.
Breakers and automatic protection devices respond with incredible speed and are typically controlled by an external agency operating at a State or Regional level.
> If the last few years (decades it seems) have taught me anything, it's that we have to reevaluate many of the assumptions we have been holding about reality and our peers. From the Target/Home Depot/Equifax breaches to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica fiasco, we have just been way too lucky and way too trusting.
Relative to what? Fraud and theft will always be factors in a functioning society. Is the total value extracted by newer frauds increasing faster than our global GDP?
> I never thought the world would put so much trust in a system created by and for the US armed forces.
What are the alternatives? The world putting it's trust in a commercial system? We'd just be trading one set of known issues with another.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003