It's just circular logic to fallaciously justify itself. "criminal organization" == "Any group of >1 person who breaks this law". The term isn't in the text of the law itself.

All you have to do is not make copies of content the creators don't want to give to you.

It costs you nothing to not infringe.

Do you also want to live in a society without personal property? Can I come to your home to borrow anything you aren't using at the moment?

> Can I come to your home to borrow anything you aren't using at the moment?

If I could have it back instantly when I wished, it's not private (like my diary), and it's impossible for you to damage it, sure, why not?

This is about intellectual property. Not personal property.

> personally instigating legal action on millions of others

how so?

The vast majority of content creators disagree.

[citation needed]

"someone else's" is a view of property rights that not all hold.

"profiteering" (vs just covering costs) assumes facts not in evidence.

This is an alternate angle, which allows prosecution without trying to count how many copies were streamed.

Is every program with variables a "fuzzy logic" program?

Is my thermostat a fuzzy-logic air conditioner?

> Is every program with variables a "fuzzy logic" program?

No. The point is not that a variable can take many distinct values, it's that it may have multiple values with differing degrees of membership.

"John's height is 178cm" is a crisp statement. It comes from a crisply measurable domain, being length. I can verify if it's true or false, to a given level of precision.

"John is medium tall height" is not a crisp statement. It represents that John is partly "medium" and partly "tall", at the same time.

> I honestly think migration out of cities will not make areas more blue, but will generally increase the conservative population in the US.

It's most likely that both will happen, thanks to Simpsons paradox: The area with immigration shifts toward the newcomers (since they aren't going to be MORE provincial than the natives, even if they partly convert), while also shifting the political power from the urban emigration are to the immigration area.

San Francisco population decimated -- succinct, correct, but sounds shocking.

As pointed out in another comment, this is just the outflow number. No word on any inflows.

Personal anecdote - haven’t heard of anyone moving into SF in a while.

EDIT: as pointed out in another comment, this data also doesn’t cover international migration without the ability to do a change of address.

Correct by the historical meaning of decimated, but I'd argue that in typical modern usage it means more than a 10% decrease.

It's essentially impossible to avoid eating sufficient essential amino acids