Believe your eyes. Go download a game on your PS5, then disable it's internet for 31 days and see what happens.

For some reason, people never seem to have trouble using 'current stock market valuations' to secure loans and credit, so.....

There's a limitation to the bootstrapping analogy here, if you think of it in the sense of a computer boot(strap). Yes; when a complex system is totally disabled (ie, the computer is shut off), then there is a reliance on the lower-level system(s) to bootstrap back into an operating mode. In this case, roughly, BIOS->Bootloader->Operating System.
Similarlty, turbine aircraft (jets, etc) require a small power unit to start up first, which then enables the full engine systems to start and run. A "bootstrap".

However, the analogy to computer systems falls down when we're talking about the overall technology base. When you already have the tools, building replacement tools doesn't have to rely on older (lesser) tools; a steel hammer can forge another steel hammer, you don't need to drop back to iron, bronze, or stone. In this case, the "bootstrap" is using older tools (iron) to build newer tools (steel), which then *does* allow you to eliminate use of the older system --as the new tools can replace it. We would only need to "bootstrap" again in the event of a total throwback to the stone age.

Similarly, to the parent's note; we (as a global society) absolutely can leverage so-called fossil fuels to enable future energy technologies, with a planned eye to remove fossil fuel use once the new technologies can replace the work required. This "bootstrap" is a once-only requirement; the older technology can vanish, because we don't need to keep re-bootstrapping to work with the newer once the newer can create/build/maintain itself. It's not necessarily going to be a fast "boot", or a quick dissolution of the older technology -- and we may be too late -- but in this case, yes, a bootstrap *can* result in the elimination of the older system. In fact, it's a requirement; we cannot get off of fossil fuels without a replacement energy source, and we cannot get a replacement energy source without using fossil fuels to move us along the path. Once we've moved along the path enough for the replacement energy source to *keep* us on the path, fossil fuels become non-required, and can be left in the dustbin of history.

Assuming, of course, we have the willpower as a society.... and the last 50 years isn't very positive on that note.

Something can be 'technically superior' but still not the 'best' solution, because 'solution' includes a lot of factors beyond 'technological superiority.'

First to market is a crapshoot; sometimes it makes you the baseline, and sometimes it just gives your competition free market research. This is where Apple lived for a long time; let Microsoft or whoever do something, then do it better.

I'm pressing 'X' to doubt. What make/model of router? I'll look up an image of the box.

Why did it need a 'big yellow burst' when it would have plainly advertised itself as a 100/1000 instead of a 10/100/1000?

Well, in this case, a distinct lack of needing to compile shaders.

And consoles have been 'PCs in fancy cases' since the OG Xbox. Arguably the Dreamcast.

Console master race stays winning, you filthy PC gaming peasants.

Buy the S2 now, while they're still working through their existing backlog of stock.

I bought a PS5Pro when the word 'tariffs' was first dropped, and I'm glad I did.

I think she could reasonably assume that she wouldn't be served liquid hot enough to literally melt her.

If by 'burned a little' you mean 'her labia literally melted and fused shut,' you're correct.

"Corporations are people, and money is speech" comes rather forcefully to mind.

This... if I had points, I'd be +1(informative) you here.

As the parent stated; the odds of 1:4200 is that *someone*, *somewhere*, gets harmed. In 4199 cases, anything reaching ground/sea level misses humanity entirely. Not remotely the same to say 1:4200 chance that any *one individual*, specifically, gets harmed; then we'd be looking at rougly 2M people expected to be harmed; hardly a negligible concern!

A quick search says that 20-25% of the world's population lives within 10 degrees of the equator (thanks White Yeti's response to parent for the latitude range); call that about 2 billion people. So there's a 1/4200 chance than 1/2,000,000,000 people would get hurt... or about 1/8,400,000,000,000 (1 in 8.4 trillion) chance for a given person in that latitude range. Maybe a little higher on the chance that the impact is in a crowded area. And as you move out of that latitude... the chance of harm moves to zero, for the other ~6B people on the planet.

Ok.
So let's look at the numbers here, again.

For a solar farm, per the earlier calculations -- the fee to be split would be on the order of $0.04/hour, per satellite tasked to the farm. For someone wanting lighting, per the article, Reflect Orbital wants to charge $5000/hour/satellite (on contracts of 1000 hours or more), with higher amounts to one-time users. If I were Reflect Orbital, I would never bother tasking to solar farms --- I could make orders of magnitude more revenue providing lighting at even a fraction of my stated price.
On the lighting side; $5K/hour at $0.18/kWH means ~27.8 MWH worth of electrical grid power, -vs- "100 moons" worth of light -- which a quick AI search indicates is *significantly less* light than a single, 100W-equivalent bulb -- which would require about 0.1 kWH of power, costing perhaps $0.018/hour. So a lighting user would be paying a crazy amount for very little light, against simply using terrestrial-powered artificial lighting.

So: the point is that, whether someone is looking at running a solar farm *or* "buying" reflected sunlight for nightttime illumination, the cost-per-unit to pay Reflect Orbital for this is insanely high for the return.

Yes, that's the point.