Hacker News Reader

> If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power.

if that happens it can be repaired more economically and faster – as has been repeatedly shown in Ukraine.

I think we need to look harder at the concept of survivor bias and what it doesn't mean for future chance if anyone believes Ukraine nuclear power stations suffering damage as routinely as any other physical asset would have been OK.

If my roof has gone it doesn't matter, as I need to move elsewhere.

Chances are my roof won't be gone though.

But 99% of your neighbours will still have power and roofs.

If a central power plant is destroyed, 0% of the neighbourhood will have power, but 100% will have roofs.

Which is better in your opinion?

The grid never relies on a single source