I think the article did sufficient to talk about 'what would happen if one were prosecuted,' given that it's really hard to predict. What I thought was missing

I think the article did sufficient to talk about 'what would happen if one were prosecuted,' given that it's really hard to predict. What I thought was missing was an acknowledgement of the circumstances that would cause a _prosecutor_ or _other litigant_ to decide to _bring an action to court._ Prosecutors are political, have limited resources, and are ultimately more or less accountable to electoral forces. Their prerogative is (almost) never going after every single person who does an action that is technically illegal. Factors like harm, the reputation of one's actions in their community, and their alignment with the political establishment are going to be considerations. As written, I could see the article maybe deterring a particularly rules-abiding individual from running a potato-eating weight loss experiment with their roommates. I've seen friends and relatives get all wound up worrying about whether something is technically illegal in some marginal way. Understanding the human factors in the pipeline between a potentially unlawful action and a consequence for it is really important. All the institutions that get anything done are keenly aware of them.