Kache

I think your ideas are too non-practical/specialized/advanced/low-level for your stated goal of 'digital literacy". They read more like college intro/followup course material and are too esoteric to be readily absorbed, esp by generic teenagers, even if they've self-selected to be "lightly interested".

One of the best tutorials on really "grokking" git concepts, and it's online and interactive: https://learngitbranching.js.org

For programming, start with buildings things for yourself. Be practical, start small, and iterate, regardless if you consider the previous iteration was a success or failure. I've heard good things about https://automatetheboringstuff.com/ (in Python) in this regard.

Can address it by writing code that doesn't depend much on indentation, which also makes code more linear and easier to follow.

wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation

To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for/while is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.

opening up new/anonymous scopes

I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose

I find it's possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn't hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.

I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java's to be (though I'm not familiar with the newest Java versions).

All methods? Of course not. Just methods like these.

I really dislike code like that. Code like that tends to lie about what it says it does and have non-explicit interactions/dependencies.

The only thing I can really be certain from that is:

  doAnything();
  if(doAnything2()) {
    doAnything3();
  }

I.e. almost nothing at all because the abstractions aren't useful.

I agree with the author overall, and I think it can be more straightforwardly stated. IMO it's the idea that wrong abstractions are even worse than other ills like duplication or god classes/modules. It's also reminiscent of "modules should be deep".

That's only because the former already implies much of the latter, so they don't need to repeat it

In a sense, money represents all the future goods and services it can buy, and those goods and services ultimately resolve down to someone's time and effort. Money was conceived as a formalization of IOU's, after all.

So it's similar to asking whether there's a limit to how much time and effort from (i.e. influence over) others one would want.

If it takes 1+ hours of work to remove a feature flag branch in an area of code, I wouldn't trust the correctness of anything the AI writes and would be super skeptical about anything the humans had written.

The synchronization problem (flakiness and all the waits) is tricky to get right. Browsers are concurrent systems, and programming around one is specialized enough that many devs don't do it well, e.g. IMO if you're adding ad-hoc waits or nesting timeouts, you've already lost.