First, some context. When I was replying to this thread, there were only three comments, the first said wireless lighting was an useless solution waiting for a

First, some context. When I was replying to this thread, there were only three comments, the first said wireless lighting was an useless solution waiting for a problem, another said it was a hobby and not too useful, and only you said it was useful. Hence, it thought it was natural to add some comment under your comment. Furthermore, the original article described how the author designed a Wi-Fi based system, and other readers seemed to have "smart" or "Wi-Fi" lights or lightbulbs in mind when they were expressing their disapproval to wireless lightning, so I thought it was useful to make the point that a remote-controlled light is not necessarily a IoT "smart" light, which constitutes the first paragraph of my reply. And the second paragraph in my reply was my personal opinion to those "Wi-Fi" / "IoT" based lightbulbs - they do have legitimate uses, however they may contain "possible bugs, and privacy concerns" (as in: a Wi-Fi controlled lightbulb with a mobile app), thus "meanwhile I'll keep using my dumb wireless light switch". I hope my comment makes sense to you now. > A radio-controlled dumb-switch used this way is still wireless lightning. Yes, and it was also the point I was trying to make.