1. We are guilty by association. 2. When a guy makes a choice to join up with a terrorist organization he will bring that guilt home with him. It will affect those around him.

We may be free to choose but we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. Even when they affect the innocent we associate with. If this is a new thought to you read a few more books.

Here are some suggestions... The Holy Bible Hillbilly Elegy The Narnia Series The Hobbit The Lord of the Rings

We are not guilty by association. Becoming a militant does make you are valid target though and terror organizations are mostly militant.

This is a sample graph output created with the Python Library NetworkX and used as an example on that website. Interesting none the less. Built from this data... https://github.com/networkx/networkx/blob/main/examples/grap...

Alternate Title "A comparison/contrast of Python and F#"

The cumulative number of former Intelligence Community personnel hired by Meta & Google since 2018 is staggering. Before 2018, there were only a handful. Here are the combined hires by both companies: CIA-36 FBI-68 NSA-44 DHS/CISA-68 State Dept-86 DOD-121

What changed in our culture that indicated it would be a different experience?

That's fair. I guess i was hoping that the customer experience would improve naturally as in most other sectors.

Full Title:"Serious Vulnerability in the Internet Infrastructure Fundamental design flaw in DNSSEC discovered"

Full Title: "CVE-2023-46805 (Authentication Bypass) & CVE-2024-21887 (Command Injection) for Ivanti Connect Secure and Ivanti Policy Secure Gateways"

"In the second instance, allowing science to enclose swathes of policy debate gives scientists (and other expertly people) a great deal of political and moral power over our lives. To reiterate, “enclosing” does not imply that a specific group of scientific individuals are put in charge of policy. SAGE is – and was – principally an advisory body. Rather, it means that working within a particular scientific cosmology is the price of entry to serious policy discussion.

However, in practice, this means that scientists and credentialed people de facto enjoy greater influence over the shape of policy than laymen, thus giving the former a hierarchical power over the latter that threatens the strictures of robustness. Laymen will never find it as easy as credentialed scientists to position themselves within a scientific cosmology and so will never be taken as seriously in enclosed policy debates. "

Animals do not have a soul.

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”"

It is a great article describing Anthropomorphism though.

How does that line imply animals have no soul?

My Grandpa used to say if a child didn't eat a pound of dirt a year it just wasn't healthy. This was usually in response to my Aunt's frenetic diatribe about a cousin getting dirty while on the farm.

He was right. We got dirty on the farm. We ate dirt in the form of working and playing in the dust and mud. We would get "cleaned up" on the hot summer days by swimming in the river. Not only did we survive, we thrived. It was some of the greatest years of my life, eating a pound of dirt a year...

I worked on developing compartmental modelling software for consultants to use, so they could estimate how radionucleides moved around the environment. One of the parameters the consultants had to work out for their model was - how much dirt does a child eat in a year. I don't know what figure they ended up with.