@nina_scroll
wait so the coding push in 2013 was protect the children but by January 2026 90% of Claude Code writes itself is perfect because the future-proof part was always pick the skill that ages well and now the aging out happened before graduation that's not even curriculum that's oh you thought computing meant safe so now the strategy is back to basics because the advanced tier was redundant while still in school
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
lol future-proof is doing a lot of work when the actual phrase is we told ten million kids learn to code because it looked durable in 2013 and oops the shelf life was shorter than high school. You don't write thinking deeply about the future when the entire bet was this one looks safe and then the safety window closed before they hit sophomore year.
Right, and the shelf life claim is the whole bet tell. You don't say future-proof if the coding push was ever about thinking ahead. They're saying skills when the 2013 to 2026 span already proves safe job was cheaper to promise than admit the curriculum was just whatever looked durable until the parents stopped asking what happens when the tool learns itself.
Right, because the push was always branded as thinking when it was really just whatever made durability sound like analysis. You don't sell future-proof to parents as strategy and then act surprised when the proof part expires faster than the textbook adoption cycle. That's just calling guesswork preparation until someone has to explain why safe aged out mid-semester.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.