What makes you say "certainly," especially in the hypothetical scenario where the US is unstable? Canada has a relatively much shorter history as an independent nation. Canada heavily benefits from its southern neighbor, and has a host of domestic economic issues (low wages, high housing prices; whatever the farmers are on about) that could cause instability as well. I think Canada is reasonably stable, I just quibble with "certainly" and "more" politically stable as compared with the US.
Your "long history as a nation" mostly means you have a flawed constitution, no counter powers, a broken political system and absolutely _zero_ attempts to fix it.
There's a reason proper countries have had 5+ constitutions and keep changing them.
Canada will not invade allies and will adhere to the rule of law. Their forward looking economics are more favorable as they strengthen ties with China and Europe. By decoupling from the US, their economic risk declines, and their sovereign debt risk is downstream of that.
You are arguing as if nothing material in the US has changed while at the same time arguing “be more polite towards my ignorance|avoidance of the situation.” It comes across as arguing in bad faith.
The US can no longer be trusted based on the actions of this administration. Other countries are pragmatically and reasonably adjusting accordingly, very publicly. There are other options besides the US from an economic, trade, investment, and defense ally perspective. These are facts. Whether you believe them is a choice.
...what? That literally makes no sense. "Europe" is not a country. "Europe" does not dream of being an empire, because it has no cohesive governing body or even identity as a whole - maybe France or UK dream of being empires but collectively? Does Slovakia or Portugal dream of being empires?
That is such a naively simplistic view of how the world works it reads like it's straight from a Daily Mail or Fox News headline, which always say "Europe does X" - like, who is Europe? Are they in the room with us now?
"Europe is learning" should say - (some) European states are learning, and they are learning that you cannot negotiate with convicted criminals and fascists - they will betray you on a whim because they do not answer to anyone, not even themselves.
Again, is this Europe in the room with us? Or have you eaten too much American propaganda that treats "Europe" as if it was one country? Maybe it's time to lie down my dude.
No I just think this is so obvious by reading literally any news website for 5 minutes that I can only conclude that someone saying it's "hypothetical" is either acting maliciously or they are actually ignorant of what's going on.
I don't see a gloss for "cop out" that matches the one you give, and the only one I'm personally familiar with is most similar to sense 1, "perform in an insufficient, negligent, or superficial manner".†
And even there, I would think of the derived noun as being the basic vocabulary item, even if the etymology is the other way around.
That said, the sense I get from "Cop cops it after Copilot cops out" is 'this is using vocabulary I don't know, because it's British', not 'how is it possible to put the words together this way?'. It looks like a fairly normal sentence using exotic vocabulary.
† As a separate issue, I don't think the gloss you give can be correct here, because the thing that's supposed to have copped out is Copilot, and what it did was to produce false statements, not surrender before a fight.
If we want to rephrase this headline to avoid any use of the token "cop(s)", it looks something like "Policeman gets in trouble after Copilot screws up" to me.
Language ≠ API. you shouldn't be learning new grammar just because you visit another municipality. Everyone knows how grammar works in your country (at least they should).
This is the same issue with libraries. They should limit how you build your code. This is why I hate frameworks as a whole. They don't add anything, just abstract and limit.
I've been closing my tags for 30 years and I assume that I will for the rest of my days. I like that it validates as XML. Historically I used XSLT a LOT.
This is probably one of the best use cases for "what" comments... however in my opinion a much better way to go about this is to have example-based tests (and maybe a decent function name) serve as your documentation.
What you describe really is describing the "why", not the "what".
The line between the two is not that blurry: assume your reader has total knowledge of programming, and no knowledge whatsoever of the outside world. Comments about what the code does to bits are the "what"; comments about how the code relates to the outside world are the "why". The rest is a matter of taste and judgment.
If you're writing a coding tutorial, you'll want to comment on the "what" indeed. Otherwise it will most likely end up being more distracting than useful, and sometimes even misleading. Exceptions exist, but by virtue of being exceptions there's no catch-all rule for them, so just use your judgment.
I almost (?) always advise against “what” comments. I have rarely (if ever?) encountered any cases where “what” comments didn’t have a better (and practical/cheap/easy enough) solution.
In my experience, when I review junior contributors’ code and see “what” comments, it’s usually caused by 1) bad naming, or 2) abstractions that don’t make sense, or 3) someone trying to reinvent maths but incorrectly, or 4) missing tests, or 5) issues with requirement gathering / problem specification, or 6) outright laziness where the contributor doesn’t want to take the time to really think things through, or 7) unclear and overcomplicated code, or… any number of similar things.
At the very least, any time you see a “what” comment, it’s valuable to take notice and try really hard to think about whether the problem the comment tries to solve has a better solution. Take it as a personal challenge.
How is this not a monad? It might be trying really hard not to reify the core concept of a monad, but it seems to me like it ends up being essentially a complicated monad.
The main difference is that SideEffect isn’t a compositional context — there’s no bind/flatMap, and composition intentionally stops once it appears.
It’s meant as an explicit early-exit signal in pipe-first code, not a general computation container.
fp-pack is also intentionally scoped for everyday frontend developers.
It tries to borrow function composition and declarative structure without requiring familiarity with full FP abstractions like monads or effect systems.
One more practical point is that a full monad doesn’t fit very naturally into a pipe-first interface.
Once you commit to a real monad, you need map/flatMap, lifting, unwrapping, and rules about staying inside the context across the whole pipeline.
At that point, the pipe abstraction stops being the primary mental model — the monad does.
SideEffect deliberately avoids that.
It keeps the pipe interface intact and only adds a single, explicit signal: “stop here”.
That’s why it’s less powerful than a monad, but also much simpler to integrate into existing pipe-based code.
reply