Or you can just not go out of your way to break the perfectly good text wrapping my browser already supports.

Fable 7 isn't a thing, 5 is the one people are currently excited about. They're talking about a hypothetical more-advanced future version.

The way you worded this has me imagining the counterfactual world where lots of people traded Bill Gates a linker for a compiler.

Compilers cost real money back then. Word got out that this was how you got a free compiler. You just wrote a linker, and you got in touch with Bill and offered it to him. (You did have to write your linker in a single huge file of assembly, because you didn't have a compiler or a linker yet. It was fine, more programmers knew assembly back then.)

Microsoft has thousands of linkers. They're the linker company now.

Most of their other products started as test cases for their linkers, that they also happen to sell separately as a side business because why not.

Excel is a notable exception, because due to a series of overengineering decisions, it actually is a linker that gradually gained spreadsheet features.

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?