The last couple paragraphs seem like a bit of non-sequitur compared to the rest of the article. The piece essentially is describing a company that has been oper

The last couple paragraphs seem like a bit of non-sequitur compared to the rest of the article. The piece essentially is describing a company that has been operating with losses for years, with liabilities in the billions, that is being target by regulatory agencies for failure to clean up their hazardous tech at the end of its lifecycle, as its CEO makes false statements to investors and the press, while its core technology is being overtaken in many markets by renewables like wind and solar. Not many of those are typically considered positive or hopeful in quality. Yet despite that (and even with the "if there's a silver lining [...]" caveat), ending the piece on what feels like a hopeful, positive note by the CEO founder talking about how he feels "like [he] has made a dent" just seems like a weird way to go. It seems like there's a reasonable chance that, well, he didn't. That the company hasn't built a sustainable model, and pulled otherwise productive capital, talent, and time into a venture that arguably has not in the last 12 years, and may not in the future, actually make any sort of a dent. While based on this one article, I wouldn't be bullish on Bloom's future, I'm mostly just commenting on that decision in the writing of the piece. To my mind, it fits oddly with the rest of the structure.