My first thought is that this entire article reads like a camouflaged press release from Meta.

The source for the article seems to be an anonymous, internal leak, but those “leaks” are often from the company itself as a way to send a message while maintaining plausible deniability.

My second thought is that they are grouping together wildly different types of infractions without saying how many people were guilty of each one. It’s possible that one person was committing outright fraud while everyone else was just accused of a minor technicality.

Finally, the accusation of “pooling” funds seems like a big tell. That’s what you should want the employees to do to save the company money. Without specific details about why that was wrong this sounds more like a gotcha than a legitimate reason to fire someone.

All of these together make this article seem like a way of scaring employees into resigning so they can cut the workforce without being subject to WARN act requirements.

You’re right that they don’t mesh with Judaism.

They also don’t mesh with Christianity.

The religion aspect of it is completely hollow; just a front used to mask being a hate group.

Exactly this. The whole “viruses evolve to be less deadly/severe” trope is just wishful thinking masquerading as science.

Evolution isn’t some sort of get-of-pandemic-free card, no matter how much we all wish it was.

There’s lots of counter examples of viruses that are still as deadly as ever, but I’d go beyond that; I’ve never seen anyone give a concrete example of a virus that actually did evolve to be less deadly.

The closest anyone has come to that is the 1918 flu pandemic, but there’s no evidence that it’s less deadly now due to evolution. It’s more like that it is simply less deadly because there isn’t as much widespread malnutrition as there was in 1918.

Only the federal government can determine whether or not the immigration is illegal.

For example, seeking asylum is legal immigration and there is no requirement for an asylum seeker to cross at an official port of entry.

Only the federal government has the right to evaluate asylum applications, so by trying to bypass the federal government, this law is effectively an attempt by the state government to deny people the right to seek asylum.