The article&#x27;s main point is solid: Learning to code is hard mostly because coding is hard -- not just because there aren&#x27;t enough learning opportunities and not just because we aren&#x27;t welcoming enough. And learn-to-code merchants who say &quot;Coding is easy!&quot; are a bit untruthful in the infomercial kind of way. As those of us who do it professionally know, coding is often tear-your-hair-out difficult. Misery loves company! :-)<p>That said, I have two problems with the article.<p>#1 - I don&#x27;t like the idea of qualifications. Sure, the lack of career-path guarantees sucks, but that anarchy also benefits us. If I can get my hands on a computer, I can learn to code on my own (with lots of hard work, yes), build what I dream of, change my life. I can sidestep red tape, bias, prejudice, and credentialism that might work against me elsewhere.<p>#2 - I dislike the vague word &#x27;aptitude&#x27;, which the author uses many times. The idea of &#x27;aptitude&#x27; may help distinguish Mozart from Salieri, but not Salieri from his cousin Fred. What I mean is, at the level most of us operate at, mightn&#x27;t factors like motivation, persistence, and health affect us more than &#x27;aptitude&#x27;? If the article replaced the word &#x27;aptitude&#x27; with &#x27;motivation&#x27; I&#x27;d like it better.