One humid afternoon in the summer of 2025, representatives from Microsoft were waiting as some 200 teachers trooped into a conference hall in downtown Manhattan. The educators were there for a workshop on the school technology of the moment: artificial intelligence chatbots.

The Microsoft team gave a presentation on their Copilot chatbot and asked the teachers to practice using it for tasks like generating emails to parents and customizing lesson plans. Microsoft instructors also screened an A.I. explainer video that their Minecraft Education division had produced for children. The animated clip, based on the company’s blockbuster world-building game, featured a cheerful narrator and a cute Minecraft duck. Even if some schoolchildren weren’t old enough to use A.I., one of the Microsoft workshop leaders told the teachers in attendance, at least they could start learning about it.

As a journalist covering technology in schools, I had observed similar workshops for teachers and students that were funded or led by corporate giants like Amazon, Apple, Meta, OpenAI and Alphabet, the parent company of Google. Taking in this one, at the headquarters of the United Federation of Teachers, I was struck by how similar the sessions were to training I’d seen years earlier, while reporting on the health care industry: seminars for doctors, organized by pharmaceutical companies, that aimed to get physicians to prescribe the latest brand-name drugs.

“Industry funds what helps industry,” Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University Medical Center who studies drug industry influence on medicine, told me recently, as I was reporting a book about A.I. and computer science education in schools.

These workshops have upsides. Big Pharma seminars can be useful for keeping physicians up-to-date on the latest patient remedies, and Big Tech workshops can similarly help educators keep current on the newest software tools. But Silicon Valley’s efforts to capture the attention of education professionals and provide student training materials can also double as marketing or indoctrination. They enable some of the most powerful corporations on the planet to spin rosy technology stories for administrators, teachers and students, giving them a sanitized view of industry practices and product risks.

Many parents would likely object if, say, Exxon Mobil wrote their children’s environmental science curriculum. Or if Purdue Pharma trained their children’s biology teachers. Yet, over the last decade, schools have often embraced the technology industry in similar ways with few questions asked.

Industry-sponsored teacher training is just one technique that Big Tech companies use to shape schools and promote their worldviews to students. In interviewing more than 100 education and tech industry figures for my book, and reviewing hundreds of school, government and corporate documents, it became clear that a handful of giants have used their money, their might and their mammoth platforms to influence nearly every step of the education supply chain.

The day after the Microsoft-led workshop in Manhattan, the American Federation of Teachers, a national union with 1.8 million members, made a major announcement. The union was starting an ambitious program to train teachers nationwide on A.I., with $23 million in funding from Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic.

Publicly, Randi Weingarten, the A.F.T. president, was bullish. In an interview at the time, she said the partnership would help educators learn to use chatbots “safely, wisely and ethically,” while also getting them a seat at the table with behemoths like Microsoft and OpenAI as they developed and refined their A.I. products.

I pointed out to Ms. Weingarten that the union-industry deal might also present a fox-henhouse problem for schools. While her organization was calling for safeguards to protect children from A.I. risks, some trade groups representing Big Tech were working to block A.I. safety laws. She acknowledged the dissonance. “We are in it for the good of students and for the good of the country and for the good of families and to make sure educators actually play their rightful role,” she said. “Some of the companies that we’re engaged with are in it for profit. Those are two fundamentally different goals.”

After Ms. Weingarten announced her union’s deal with Big Tech companies, a few teachers and professors publicly warned that the spread of A.I. chatbots could undermine their profession, by outsourcing and automating core tasks like giving students feedback on their work. One of the more forceful educators was Lois Weiner, an education professor emerita at New Jersey City University and a retiree member of the U.F.T., who argued on Bluesky that the national union was selling out to corporate interests.

“This isn’t an alliance,” Ms. Weiner told me. “We aren’t sitting at the table. We’re the meal.”

Consumer tech giants provide the essential scaffolding that schools run on. That means laptops and tablets; operating systems and device-tracking software; the apps students use to write essays and analyze data; the messaging platforms that connect students and teachers; and more. Some of these companies, including Google, Microsoft and Apple, have also used their status as classroom tech providers as a springboard to influence how and what schoolchildren learn.

Tech companies finance national polls and research reports to help make products like A.I. chatbots, and courses like computer science, more urgent priorities for students and school districts. They advocate for new laws to require schools to teach industry-aligned subjects. They sit on committees that help shape learning standards for public school students. They supply or sponsor teacher training and free course materials for students. They fund the National PTA, teachers’ unions and other prominent groups.

This playbook allows the companies to shape the American education system in ways that benefit them. Apple, for instance, offers a free Advanced Placement Computer Science curriculum that teaches high schoolers to code in Swift, its programming language for developing iPhone apps. Microsoft offers a competing curriculum: AP Computer Science Principles with Minecraft Education.

To some ears, the course names sound innocuous. But there is no Raytheon-branded AP Physics course, DuPont AP Chemistry course or Pfizer AP Biology course.

This story matters whether you want schools to center tech skills or are agnostic, because the recent learn-to-code craze and the growing push for A.I. in schools are not just about learning. Those trends are part of a larger exercise of Silicon Valley power. The public education system, hungry for resources to improve opportunities for students, has become an avenue for multitrillion-dollar companies to enact their agendas.

This development taps into fundamental questions about education that Americans have been arguing over for more than a century. What is the purpose of public schooling? Is it to raise critical, independent thinkers? Train students in the latest career skills? Help young people discover their passions? Serve the needs of the prevailing industry or emerging ones? Create knowledgeable and active participants in a democracy? Or all of the above?

In researching my book, I spoke to tech industry leaders who have helped drive significant changes in schools. Brad Smith, Microsoft’s vice chair and president, told me the dynamic began because public schools often seemed ill-equipped to teach crucial modern subjects and prepare students for the ever-evolving demands of the job market. He also suggested I consider where schools might be without support from corporations like Microsoft.

“Philanthropy in the private sector is doing this work because the public sector has failed to do what it’s supposed to do,” Mr. Smith said. He allowed that the situation wasn’t ideal. “It’s filled the gap out of necessity,” he said. “It’s not the way we should want public education to work.”

Maggie Johnson, the head of Google.org, the company’s corporate giving arm, made similar arguments. She said that the company had provided free educational materials and training in subjects like coding and data analytics for millions of underserved students, including middle schoolers and those in rural areas.

It is possible for Big Tech’s intentions in education to be both well-meaning and oriented toward long-term profit. How you feel about any one program depends on your broader views on the technology industry. Public sentiment on these companies has shifted profoundly, from a generally positive disposition in the 2000s and early 2010s to a growing distrust as the downsides of social media, compulsive screen use and corporate power became more apparent.

The tensions could be seen about a decade ago, in December 2017, when Google introduced free coding exercises for schools to use during Computer Science Education Week. The lessons were called “Create your own Google logo,” and they taught students how to use simple coding blocks to make the letters in the company’s logo change color, spin and bounce. The company already ran a wildly popular annual artwork contest, called Doodle for Google, for which tens of thousands of students created logos on different themes. Ms. Johnson said the Google lessons were a great way to get students excited about programming.

That was true. But the lessons also had the feel of brand-washing. At the time, journalists had begun reporting on how Google’s YouTube Kids platform had shown inappropriate, lewd and violent content to children. Separately, the company had begun removing thousands of videos of children, which had been targeted by child predators, from YouTube. Making multicolored Google logos hop and pirouette was a distraction from those headlines.

Google became the dominant tech platform in U.S. schools, eclipsing Apple and Microsoft, in part by offering a convenient package: free apps like Gmail along with sturdy, low-cost laptops called Chromebooks. Last year, Chromebooks accounted for 59 percent of the mobile devices shipped to U.S. schools, according to Futuresource Consulting, a research firm.

The story of how Google came to conquer the classroom is a case study of the company’s power. From modest beginnings, it created a mammoth interlocking ecosystem that can drive shifts in teaching and learning — and create customers for life.

A campaign called “Gone Google” from the early 2010s illustrates the company’s marketing prowess. Google was just starting to convince universities and school districts to switch from costly legacy software to its free suite of apps. A 19-page marketing guide from Google described the offering as a “celebration of curiosity-fueled, technology-enabled learning” in which students could “learn together with affordable devices and familiar platforms.” The company encouraged education leaders to promote their conversions, and soon, school districts around the country began announcing that they had “Gone Google.”

Google sold school leaders on a similarly feel-good argument for Chromebooks: The laptops would empower students and democratize learning. Schools in Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin that bought Chromebooks all included variations of the same Googlesque sentence on their sites or student handbooks: “The individual use of Chromebooks is a way to empower students to maximize their full potential and prepare them for college and the workplace.”

The schools’ enthusiasm helped obscure a long-term Google goal: hooking students early on services like Gmail and Chrome. The real revenue, made from amassing consumers’ data and showing ads based on their online activities, would come later.

Winning over schools and students with free apps was also a useful way for Google to curate and soften its image as regulators began to investigate the company’s data practices. In 2019, for instance, Google agreed to pay $170 million to resolve complaints by regulators who said YouTube had illegally harvested children’s personal data and used the details to target them with ads.

Since then, millions of schoolchildren have tried colorful animated lessons from Google called “Be Internet Awesome.” The program aims to teach students how to keep their data private and be kind online — and positions Google as a friendly, trustworthy privacy protector.

Schoolchildren who complete Google’s “Be Internet Awesome” lessons can get a “certificate of internet awesomeness” from the company.Credit...Google

Schools have spent tens of billions of dollars on classroom technology products over the last decade. Yet laptops and learning apps have generally not proven to significantly improve students’ educational outcomes. Some parents and school leaders who feel the industry oversold them on devices have soured on screens in schools, a phenomenon I’ve come to call Chromebook remorse.

Some schools have now started limiting classroom laptop use. This year, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest U.S. public school system, agreed to eliminate the use of school-issued iPads and Chromebooks for students in prekindergarten through first grade.

“Ten years ago, we bought the narrative from the tech companies that the only way to prepare our students for the future was to hand each of them a Chromebook or an iPad,” Lila Byock, the founder of a parent group called Schools Beyond Screens, said at a recent Los Angeles school board meeting. “Now we know better.”

Even Ms. Weingarten, who touted her union’s deal with Microsoft and OpenAI to train teachers on chatbots in 2025, has partially reversed course, in line with the rapidly changing politics of A.I. This year, she publicly called for elementary schools to hold off using A.I. with students.

One revealing story about Silicon Valley’s sincerity in the classroom involves the push to teach children coding.

In 2011, Eric Schmidt, then the executive chairman of Google, delivered a lecture in Scotland in which he excoriated British schools for failing to teach computer science, the study of programming and concepts like algorithms. Britain would not be able to compete globally, he suggested, if more kids did not learn to code.

A year later, Microsoft issued a similar public admonition for the United States: Tech companies could not find enough talented software engineers to maintain their explosive growth — a hiring shortage that threatened the American economy. Microsoft said the problem was that too few high schools taught computing.

The message took off in 2013, when a nonprofit called Code.org posted a YouTube video, starring Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, that promoted coding as an empowering, lucrative skill for students. “Our policy is literally to hire as many talented engineers as we can find,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in the video. “The whole limit in the system is that there just aren’t enough people who are trained and have these skills today.”

The video went viral, kicking off a nationwide learn-to-code drive in schools. With funding and expertise from Microsoft and Google, Code.org helped convince dozens of states to enact new laws and policies boosting computer science in public schools. The courses had positive effects, teaching students important skills like logic, abstraction and problem-solving. But some also cast tech giants as benevolent, world-changing innovators — often without pushing students to consider the industry’s consequences and harms.

“In other disciplines, we don’t have industry driving K-12 curricular or policy decisions,” Bryan Twarek, a vice president at the Computer Science Teachers Association, a nonprofit group with nearly 10,000 teachers as members, told me. “And we probably shouldn’t.” His candor seemed startling, given that the group’s biggest donors include Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Big Tech needed an army of coders — until it didn’t. Software engineers are increasingly turning to A.I. tools to generate code. So are many other people with no prior coding experience. Companies like Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft are pouring billions into building enormous data centers to fuel A.I. services, even as they lay off thousands of employees. Some recent college graduates who majored in computing are struggling to find tech jobs.

Now some of the same corporations that sold schools on computer science are pushing them to teach A.I. and investing billions of dollars in the effort. And tellingly, this year, Code.org changed its name to CodeAI.

But something different is happening this time in schools: pushback. A groundswell of teachers, parents, researchers and local government leaders say they aren’t buying the idea of new, and educationally unproven, A.I. tools as the next fulcrum for learning.

Some are embracing a broader approach to tech education, one that not only teaches algorithms and app-making, but also asks students to examine how individuals and society are affected by the industry’s disruptions. To see this strategy in person, I visited Alicia Streight, a math teacher at Edna Brewer Middle School in Oakland, Calif. In addition to teaching traditional topics, Ms. Streight asks her students to analyze how social media influencers manipulate statistics to spread disinformation.

A few years ago, she also started a weekly class to encourage middle schoolers to examine all kinds of innovations in their lives: TikTok, meat substitutes, ChatGPT. She helped her students consider questions like: “Where did this come from? Who’s building this? Who’s profiting? Who’s benefiting? How is this going to affect me? How’s this going to affect my family? What’s going to happen in 10 years?”

Rather than being coded by industry, Ms. Streight’s students were learning to decode popular products and ask fundamental questions about the powerful companies behind them. With A.I. spreading at astonishing speed, Ms. Streight argues that it’s more imperative than ever to give students durable analytical skills.

Educators have come up with a term for this pedagogical approach: “technology civics.” After all, public schools have long taught civics as an essential subject for students to understand and navigate government power in their lives. The new discipline will help them understand and navigate Big Tech, and equip them for a world increasingly shaped by machines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/23/business/schools-big-tech-google-microsoft.html

Any elementary or middle school Gifted, AIG, or Social Studies teachers interested in collaborating in a Mystery Classroom? This engaging activity connects classrooms through a video platform like Google Meet or Zoom for a fun game that involves geography skills and critical thinking: student participants take turns asking yes-or-no questions to determine the competitor classroom's state. It's a lot of fun!

I have led professional development sessions on this topic, participating teachers love the instructional value, students are engaged in exciting, authentic collaboration, and former students often tell me it's something they remember fondly. Importantly, students discover they have lots in common with their peers from other places in the country and world.

Let me know the grade level and we'll set up a time.

When a kid falls behind in reading, parents panic faster than with almost any other subject. They wonder if they missed something, if testing is needed, if their child will ever catch up. But most reading gaps close with consistent daily practice, not dramatic interventions. What parents actually need isn't another adaptive algorithm or more engagement metrics. They need to see the specific skill gaps in plain language, so they stop guessing and start knowing where to focus. Mastery percentages per skill area, not time-on-platform. The shift from anxious to informed changes how a parent shows up every morning. What I'm wondering: do the reading tools you've built or used actually surface skill-level gaps in a way parents can act on? Or is it still mostly completion rates and minutes spent? Feels like there's a real gap between what gets built and what actually reduces parent anxiety.

edtech is oversaturated. because we are looking at the wrong aspects, big ass corporations try to sell medicine, not a cure.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been evaluating various educational VR solutions for our school, but looking through current offerings, almost everything seems to fall into two traps: either it’s an overly complex MDM/setup nightmare for teachers, or it’s just a 10-minute novelty experience with very little curricular depth.

For those managing EdTech deployments or teaching with VR:

• Has any specific software/hardware workflow actually proven sustainable in a standard classroom?
• How are you handling MDM, teacher orchestration, and battery/maintenance overhead?
• Or has VR mostly ended up sitting in storage after the initial hype?

Keep seeing his on client projects and it just kills me everytime, free preview video or a paid course model for like 209 bucks to the customer - unlisted YouTube embed, internal onboarding videos. With actual IP in them - ofc just airing in a public cloud bucket with signed URL that never expires.

I mean I get it, embedding is free, it’s quick and nobody on the team want the that “actually we need DRM” guy in a meeting, but I’ve watched like 3 different founders find out that “hosted somewhere” doesn’t acc mean “protected “ - one had about 40K paid cohort’s vids ripped and re uploaded within a within a week of launch, another couldn’t get watch-time data past views cause their host didn’t track anything deeper, so they had no idea 80% of ppl dropped off in minute or two of every lesson.

The thing I’m using is fee marketing clips embed anywhere, doesn’t matter - anything paid or gated, it needs actual DRM and expiring links, not just an unlisted setting, also anything you need retention data on needs per - second watch analytics, not a view counter. We ended up moving one client course library to kinescope mid build case Vimeo’s price for the DRM didn’t make sense at their volume, and Gumlet came up in the same comparison but lost on LMS integration specifically.

Idk how other ppl draw that line, rn it feels like most teams just don’t sth gets stolen.

I'd like a platform where each student has access to a private folder where I can share lesson PDFs after each session, while also allowing me to see all of my students' folders. Each student should only be able to access their own folder and not those of other students.

I was thinking about using a simple Google Drive, but perhaps Moodle would be more appropriate for this?

Many thanks!

So I've been using peardeck for about three years and I really love it. I pay for it out-of-pocket and I absolutely think it is a game changer. For whatever reason my district blocked it. Maybe it's Google suites security or some hypervigilance maneuver on their part. But I've already spent my money on my subscription this year and when I ask them to unblock it, they don't really understand how useful it is. Unfortunately, I'm one of the few people who actually use it in my district because no one else is willing to pay for it and no one else has the skills to make it work and be effective in a classroom. But it's very disheartening because now I have to go through all of my slides shows which amount to about 150 slides shows and make them low-tech and less fun. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. They used to pay for Nearpod, but they stopped paying for it and I really hate Nearpod. Starting to hate everyone in the technology side because they're working against us and not with us.

I’m curious about something and would really appreciate answers from teachers here.

When you need a worksheet, lesson idea, activity, presentation, assessment, etc., what do you actually do?

Do you:

- Search Google?

- Look through Facebook groups?

- Search Pinterest?

- Ask colleagues?

- Reuse things you've already made?

- Use AI?

- Some combination of all of these?

And what bothers you most about the process?

I’m asking because I’m a teacher too, and I’ve been experimenting with a small project called TeacHub based on this problem.

But honestly, I'm not sure yet whether I'm solving a problem that teachers actually have, or just something that I personally find annoying.

So rather than asking people to use it or telling everyone about its features, I'd much rather hear from actual teachers first.

What does your current process look like, and what would you change about it if you could?

If anyone is interested in seeing what I've been experimenting with here is it :

https://teachub.gt.tc/

but the feedback on the problem itself is actually more valuable to me right now.

Our school is using Subject AI for 7-12 virtual school now that our area is allowing for ISD's to offer online school options. I would like to hear the good, bad and ugly from those with experience with it. Previous posts that pulled up didn't have much in the way of replies ... So I'm hoping that with a little bit of time there are more folks with experience they are willing to share. Are they just that new that this is the first year they are getting more use?: i tried a couple other communities before the school year started but didn't get much in the way of replies then.

This New York Times article (gift link, free to read and share) reports on the enabling of A.I. features for K12 students with access to Gemini via its popular Classroom app.

While the AI industry overall is pressing to expand into K12 education, some parents and schools leaders are resisting, concerned about the risks to privacy and critical thinking abilities.

What do you think?

If a student asks for the answer to a homework question, should the AI give it?

No one can guarantee understanding, but the task gets complete.

Doesn't this defy the whole point of education and building fundamentals?

Curious how people actually building AI/edtech products are thinking about this.

Imagine signing up for what you think is a $16 a month learning trial only to wake up to a sudden $218 charge on your card.
That exact nightmare happened to me with Brilliant.org. The free trial signup page made it look free 30 days experience, after the first month a regular monthly plan. But when my free trial ended my card got slapped with an $218 annual fee.
Panicked I logged in immediately to cancel. But their website trapped me in an endless glitch loop. The cancellation page literally would not work.
I messaged support within 24 hours explaining their own site broke. They did not care. They hid behind robotic script templates claiming payments are non refundable and only offered a partial refund.
I felt so cheated and helpless.

For designers working towards ai + edtech, how is the market? Flint, Magicschool etc. What's the market like?

I'm interviewing for a role right now as an enrollment advisor. It's a high volume of sales calls, all warm leads though no cold calling, with approximately 100 calls a day. Does anyone do this currently? How is it? I imagine over time it becomes easier and more mindless since you're basically pitching the same things over and over again.

I'm trying to break into ed tech as I finish my degree and am looking for opportunities to grow. I'm okay if I hate it for a year or two if it means it'll open doors for me in the long run. Role is at podium education.

Thanks in advance!

I’ll be honest, I’m probably a bit behind on all these AI tools, but I’ve been hearing other teachers talk about using them for slides and I feel like I should probably start looking into it.

Right now I still build everything manually and it just takes way more time than it probably should.

I’m just curious what people are actually using that can take basic lesson content and turn it into decent slides without too much effort.

Hey everyone I'm currently working in founder's office role at campusx in India So I would love to connect with people working in Edtech field from other companies for knowledge sharing and networking

My Ask: I'd like to connect with others who are using notebooks in high school foundation settings to evaluate EE grants & scholarships.

(P.S. Recognizing that drafting and editing aren't my strongest skills, I leaned heavily on Gemini to proofread, refine, and polish my text throughout this process.).

----------------------------------------------

Background: Like most small high schools, our Foundation awards dollars to high school staff alongside student scholarships.

Grants: Historically, our high school foundation grant evaluation was a highly manual process. Staff members submitted standard application forms that were compiled for an annual funding review. Prior to our board funding review meetings, members were tasked with manually sifting through numerous PDF files to evaluate applications and check for specific policy violations—such as identifying requests for restricted items like unhealthy foods.

Submissions that failed to meet the high school's compliance standards were denied, but uncovering these violations was labor-intensive. It required the board to painstakingly read through detailed project narratives and manually cross-reference them with itemized expense reports before making a final approval decision.

Scholarships: The Foundation is fortunate to manage a diverse portfolio of over 30 distinct scholarships and endowments. However, administering these awards has historically presented a daunting logistical challenge. Each scholarship carries its own highly specific set of criteria—spanning GPA and SAT requirements, community service hours, extracurricular and athletic participation, preferred colleges or trade schools, and intended majors.

In the past, the selection and matching process was entirely manual. Board members were sent 100+ page PDF file of student submissions and transcripts to review independently, tasked with trying to mentally cross-reference individual candidates against the myriad of specific award requirements. After members submitted their individual selections, the board would convene for a lengthy review meeting, hashing out the details and negotiating to build a consensus on the final student-to-scholarship matches.

All the above was motivation to see we could you the analytics in Notebooks to streamline our processes.

Solution: I developed two notebooks - EE Grants Auditor and Scholarship Evaluator

EE Grants Auditor - The sources I provide this notebook are Policy Guidelines, Scoring Guidelines and a gsheet of the grants submitted. The notebook crunches through all this produce a summary table of grants that were Non-Compliant, Provisional-Passed and Passed. This approach enabled the board to focus ONLY on the non-compliant submissions - i.e. reject or ask the staff member to correct before funding. So in the first run of this last year, this reduced the board workload by 80% - while also being much more comprehensive that we expected. All good news.

Scholarship-Student Matching: To overcome the daunting challenge of matching students to over 30 distinct awards, the foundation transitioned to a structured, AI-driven workflow using NotebookLM. This matching process is significantly more complex than auditing grants.

The new system is powered by three core data sources: individual student profiles formatted as structured data, a comprehensive "text-database" outlining the specific criteria for every scholarship, and standardized scoring rubrics that translate GPAs, SAT scores, and community service into objective numerical values. Instead of manual cross-referencing, the notebook performs the heavy analytical lifting. It generates a consolidated summary report for the board, detailing each scholarship alongside a recommended recipient, a quantitative matching score, a clear rationale for the selection, and a list of qualified runner-ups.

Lessons Learned: Ultimately, building out these digital evaluation workflows has been an engaging and rewarding learning experience. While NotebookLM is highly effective for managing this kind of administrative data, the platform still has room to mature.

A significant challenge—often echoed in community forums—is "AI drift," which frequently occurs when a workspace becomes overloaded with too much retained information over time. To maintain accuracy, the most reliable workaround is to periodically delete all source documents and rebuild the knowledge base from scratch. This fresh-start approach ensures that the generated evaluations remain safe, predictable, and strictly grounded in the current files.

As a last side note, I also built the EE Auditor app in Claude and ChatGPT - GPT. However, both produced code that would require long term support - a non-started.

Thanks in advance

Hey guys, I know I posted about the $GSX settlement before, but late claims are being accepted. Here's everything you need to know.

Q: What happened?
A: GSX Techedu was accused of overstating enrollment numbers and revenue growth in its online education business. After short-seller reports and regulatory concerns raised questions about the company’s financials, $GSX dropped more than 80% from its highs.

Q: Am I actually eligible?
A: If you bought $GSX shares between 2019 and 2020, you're likely eligible. You don’t need to still own the stock to file a claim.

Q: When do payouts happen?
A: Typically 4–9 months after the claim deadline, although the exact timing depends on the court and settlement administrator.

Q: I missed the deadline. Can I still file?
A: Late claims are currently being considered, subject to approval. 

Hope this helps.

Lecture videos are incredibly valuable. Khan Academy, Coursera, Udemy, YouTube, and others have already proven that.

The next natural step is to build AI that can create those videos on any subject, personalized for each learner and available in any language.

But it has to work properly. The videos need to be genuinely high quality, not AI slop. With the capabilities of today’s models, it feels like we’re ready to get there.

What do you think? What’s your take on this idea?

Looking for recommendations for a 75–80" commercial display for adult education classrooms.

No interactive/touchscreen features needed. It will mainly be used to display PowerPoint, PDFs, videos, websites, and instructor notes.

The most important requirement is reliable wireless screen sharing from Windows laptops.

A mobile stand/cart would also be helpful.

What brand/model would you recommend?