No.

For humans who are paying attention, sure. In practice, not really, because it's all done by scripts without an easy way to query "is this ___domain shared".

Datadog, of course.

Let's rephrase then: why does owning stock imply financially supporting the company? After IPO, you're not buying anything from the company, you're buying from other investors.

Stocks are also called shares, the name is a bit of a give away. It’s a share of a company you are a partial owner of it with some rights.

I think you do endorse the company whose shares you hold, in particular if it’s public knowledge.

Not only that, but your goal as a shareholder is to benefit financially from the company. If a company is a bad actor and you know it, you are expressly financing and benefitting from bad acts. I’m not sure why other commenters are trying to abstract this fact out of existence. It is not rocket science!

> you are expressly financing

This is the part I don't understand. You generally buy stock from other stock holders. The company doesn't get the proceeds.

So if you buy stolen goods from someone who bought the stolen goods from the thief, and you knew the goods were stolen, you are doing nothing unethical. That’s all you’re saying, which is a position you can have, but it is a sad one. And you are, in fact, contributing to bad acts. The initial buyer may not have bought the investment if they knew there wasn’t a rube down the line that would take it off their hands.

Ok, this kind of makes sense. By holding a stock, you're increasing demand. Future fund raising for the company will benefit. I think.

Yep. And then they discontinued it saying they wanted to add features that wouldn't work on IRC.

Yes. That's why I was using the IRC bridge.

That would seem to be why they asked how repeatable the pattern was, in a tone heavily implying the answer was "not very".

I used it and liked it when it was Credit Karma, but I am not doing extensive data entry in a phone app. Do they have a web interface now?

And the receiver has no guarantee that I didn't photocopy the paper before mailing it.

The JVM did that many years ago and nobody liked it. I can't help but think wasm is just the same idea but worse.

Outside of web applets, set-top boxes, and DVD players, JVM didn't really do much sandboxing. On the desktop or server, it did practically none.

I think the rest of your sentence was "by default" which is the same thing the comment you're replying to said: "security gets in the way of everything"

One could always launch any java process with java -Djava.security.manager -Djava.security.policy=someURL and it would sandbox a huge number of things (see: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/security/permissio... )

The problem is that defining a reasonable policy for any modern app is a gargantuan pain -- as is the case with any security policy language -- so as the GP said people hated it and now it's dead https://openjdk.org/jeps/411

I think a key part of solving that is by not thinking of it as a set of security enforcement rules on top of the preexisting platform, but as a new platform (that just runs everywhere). So, instead of ACL listing what files can be accessed, shove it in a sandbox where the app has its own files, and the platform open file dialog enables the user to authorize one-time access to individual files.

You basically can't take a complex thing and write complex security rules for it and expect success & real world adoption.

Trivially yes: how many sides does one atom have?