Your cost went up because you are paying for people like him, who previously were denied coverage. You say that you are glad that the ACA is working for him, but how glad are you exactly? Glad enough to keep paying more so that his preexisting conditions can be covered? Or will you tell him "Well, I would be glad of you could get medical treatment, but not glad enough to make me agree to pay more for my own insurance, so f*ck you"?

The exact cost of a starlink satellite is not publicly known, but spacex has stated that they are under $500k. It's definitely not millions per sat.

I strongly encourage you to hire a lawyer if you ever need any legal opinions for somthing in your real life, because you are Dunning-Krugering really hard right now.

Determining willful vs accidental infringement isn't about proof, it's about a preponderance of evidence. Printing it on the package is probably enough to prima facie establish a preponderance that you knew about it. They can prove they presented you with it in writing. Can you prove that you didn't read it? You can argue that you didn't actually read it even though you had it, and you might succeed with that argument or you might not. Either way, it puts them in a better position and you in a worse position than if they didn't put it on the package.

It's not an EULA. The grapes are patented, and the patent applies whether you agree or not. The text on the package is just a warning telling you that you dont have permission to reproduce it, so now if you reproduce it they can sue you for willful infringement instead of accidental infringement.

The person who plants them get sued. Unless they can show that you bought them with the intent of giving them to the other person so he could plant them, in which case you can be sued too (for "contributory infringement").

It's NOT a shrink-wrap license. The grape is patented, and the patent applies whether you agree or not. The text on the package is just a warning telling you that you dont have permission to reproduce it, so now if you reproduce it they can sue you for willful infringement instead of accidental infringement.

There is no agreement necessary. It's a patent, it applies whether you agree or not. The text on the package is just to put you on notice of the patent, so if they sue you now they can get you for willfull infringement instead of just accidental infringement.

It is a patent, it applies to everyone. You don't get to make a new copy of a patented product just because you bought one instance of it. But I like how you don't let your total ignorance of the relevant law stop you from having strong opinions about it!

Plant patents have been a thing since 1930. How old are you, exactly?

It's a patent. It applies to everyone and does not expire with a sale.

The question isn't "will it be great?"

The question is "will it be better than what we have now?"

No one ever promised you "great".

There's a difference between a good-faith effort to improve the signal vs. a bad-faith effort to obscure the signal by deliberately injecting noise.

This is an example of the "whataboutist" fallacy. Yes, modern Turkey has a big problem with denial of the Armenian genocide. But we don't have to decide what to do about Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide to decide what to do about holocaust denial. The question of whether Facebook should ban holocaust denial stands or falls on its own merits.

Perhaps a better analogy would be; if the police get a warrant to sieze my diary but then are disappointed to find that it's written in a foreign language that they can't easily translate, does their warrant obligate me to translate it for them? Or do my obligations end when I hand over the diary?