Hacker News Reader

Comment by Reedx | Hacker News Reader

I've been wondering about this in regards to how CA is reframing "rolling blackouts" as "de-energization areas".

It seems so blatantly ridiculous, and I feel like it does more harm than good, but they must have reason to think otherwise?

View on HN

Isn't it the reasoning behind the blackouts? I thought rolling blackouts were typically due to not having enough power generation. What's happening now is related to preventing fires isn't it?

"de-energization" doesn't say anything about the reason either. Using overly-formal worlds is PR spin tactic to suppress the connotation of the common term, and psedo-justify the action by connoting scientific credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout

PG&E has been pretty clear about the fact that their unlimited financial exposure to fire damage is the core cause of these blackouts. Rolling blackouts implies some sort of issue with power generation, which isn’t the actual cause.

Seriously? Instead of solving the problem the whole government of California is just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I know PG&E needs to be punished but the people of California need to stand up for their rights and see that instead of wasting loads of cash on pork projects they clean up the areas around electrical wiring instead of just "de-energizing" , it's all quite ridiculous. California is not supposed to be a 3rd world country and just shrug.

Carlin said it best - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

That is an odd word. Seems "de-energized areas" would be better. De-energizaton is the action that was taken on the area.

I agree with the other commentor. This term indicates it was done on purpose. It describes the stare of the power line. I think it's better than blackout.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com