Long-time Slashdot reader theodp shares his perspective on the 10th anniversary of Code.org: Remember this?" asks tech-backed Code.org on Twitter as it celebrates its achievements.... "It's the viral video that launched Code.org back in 2013!" Code.org also reminds its 1M Twitter followers that What Most Schools Don't Teach starred tech leaders Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Tony Hsieh, and Drew Houston.

But 10 years later, the promise of unlimited tech jobs and crazy-fun workplaces promoted in the video by these Poster Boys for K-12 Computer Science hasn't exactly aged well, and may serve as more of a cautionary tale about hubris for some rather than evoke fond memories.

"Our policy at Facebook is literally to hire as many talented engineers as we can find," exclaimed Zuckerberg in the video. But ten years later, Facebook's policy is firing as many employees as it can — 11,000+ and counting. Houston, who sang the praises of working in cool tech workplaces in the video ("To get the very best people we try to make the office as awesome as possible"), went on to make remote work the standard practice at Dropbox, cut 11% of his employees, and reported a $575M loss on unneeded office space. Under pressure, Gates left Microsoft, Dorsey left Twitter, and Hsieh tragically left (Amazon-owned) Zappos, and the companies they co-founded recently unveiled plans for massive layoffs and halted ambitious office expansion plans as tech employees push back on return-to-the-office edicts.

Still, there's no denying the success of what the National Science Foundation called the "amazing marketing prowess" of tech giant supported and directed Code.org when it comes to pushing coding into American classrooms. The nonprofit boasts of having 80M+ student accounts, reported it had spent $74.7M to train 113,000+ K-12 teachers to deliver its K-12 CS curriculum, and has set its sights on making CS a high school graduation requirement in every state by 2030.

Interestingly, concomitant with Code.org's 10th anniversary celebration was the release of a new academic paper — Breaking the Code: Confronting Racism in Computer Science through Community, Criticality, and Citizenship — that provocatively questions whether K-12 CS, at least in its current incarnation, is a feature or a bug. From the paper: "We are currently seeing an unprecedented push of computing into P-12 education systems across the US, with calls for compulsory computing education and changes to graduation requirements.... Although computing creep narratives are typically framed in lofty democratic terms, the 'access' narrative is ultimately a corporate play. Broadening participation in computing serves corporate interests by offering an expanded labor supply from which to choose the most productive workers. It is true that this might benefit an elite subset of BIPOC individuals, but the macroeconomics of the global labor market mean that access to computing is unlikely to ever benefit BIPOC communities at scale. [...] There are several nonprofits invested in the growth of computing, many with mission statements that do explicitly cite equity (and sometimes racial equity, in particular). Some of the larger nonprofits, though, are mainly funded by (and thus ultimately serve) corporate interests (e.g., Code. org).

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is investigating the potentials and dangers of solar geoengineering technologies, stating that these controversial interventions are humanity's "only option" to quickly cool the planet within years. An anonymous shares an excerpt from a Motherboard article: In a report published by UNEP in February, an independent panel describes what's currently known about so-called solar radiation modification, also called solar geoengineering, and concludes that, despite its great potential, it's not viable or even safe right now. Nonetheless, amid growing calls from governments to find an emergency brake for climate change -- and ongoing, independent efforts to develop solar geoengineering technology -- the UNEP is calling for a full-scale global review of the tech and eventual multinational framework for how it should be governed. The recommendations have some opponents fearing that this amounts to endorsement of adopting the technology -- a move that could create an even worse environmental crisis by messing with intertwined natural climate systems or pulling the focus away from mitigation measures, as well as further widening the inequalities that already exist as a result of climate change.

Solar radiation modification describes a range of technologies that aim to cool our overheated planet by reflecting incoming sunlight back out into space, or making it easier for heat coming off the earth to escape. Blocking out just two percent of sunlight could, according to some estimates, totally offset the warming that comes from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels. It's a tantalizing prospect, but comes with a raft of issues. For one, as the report notes, the best large-scale evidence we have that it could even work is from volcanic eruptions, where the smog cooled the globe for a couple of years afterwards. Most of the actual research has involved climate modeling, theoretical analyses or cost estimates. Some groups have conducted small-scale indoor experiments of how the tech might work. No one's taken the trials outdoors yet.

Even if we knew more, it's not a be-all-end-all climate solution, said UNEP's chief scientist, Andrea Hinwood. "SRM technologies, should they be considered at some point in the future, do not solve the climate crisis because they do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor reverse the impacts of climate change. The world must be crystal clear on this point," she said in a UN media release. What solar geoengineering might do though, is buy the planet some time. The UNEP report highlights that even if we fully halted CO2 emissions right now, it could take at least until the end of the century to see a drop in temperature. "Make no mistake: there are no quick fixes to the climate crisis," wrote UNEP executive director Inger Andersen in the report. "Increased and urgent action to slash greenhouse gas emissions and invest in adapting to the impacts of climate change is immutable. Yet current efforts remain insufficient." Despite firm opposition from some, the message from the UNEP report seems to be to proceed with caution. "While UNEP is concerned, it is naive to think research will cease and the issues will disappear. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand," said chief scientist Hinwood.