/soy/ - Soyjaks

this is a philosophy/idea thread, dont actually commit crimes, that shit glows.
Lets say everyone is a rational actor. One person is trying to cause the most harm possible, how should he proceed? He has 2 options:
first is attacking the people. He would attack the people, like a mass shooting. But even in this circumstance, mass shootings are suboptimal. going into an extremely packed public space, like the town square, and just rolling people over with a car would get you more kills. Mass shootings are just plain inefficient. And even the best mass shooting event, considering that one life is worth 15 million dollars (in the upper end), killed 48 people (excluding the perpetrator), causing 720M dollars in monetary damages. 2nd is attacking vulnerable systems. A carefully orchestrated, asymptotic attack on public infrastructure, or even things which dont have built in redundancy, would be way more effective. For example: shooting down a transformer is extremely easy (just shoot the oil container until it leaks), and you wont even be found if you maintain good OPSEC (not the kali linux larper shit, irl opsec, like wearing gloves and making sure your DNA isnt on the scene and shit). Since grids are built with N-1 redundancy, if you can find (which is easy since all this info is public) and destroy 2 critical transformers, you can cause a blackout to millions of people for months (since replacing a transformer can take up to a year or more), and they dnt have any armed guards, since there are tens of thousands of facilities. You just approach it, shoot a few bullets from afar, and get out once your job is done.
Again, this is hypothetical, and actually putting out your issues to the government and voting for or against things is way more productive, result bearning and legal that doing this shit. I just wrote this here as a thought experiment.
TLDR: mass shootings are retarded and wasteful