I hope it is in the form of an NFT, they shouldn't trust anything else.

they do think it is, they think it gives them legitimity and leverage vs those companies in the midst of their age verification and vpn control scheme. these guys don't give a fuck about kids, at least not in the sense you might assume (if they're poor.

they're not very bright, though. they're just reckless and depraved.

on the bright side, soon some regulars here won't have to get all apoplectic whenever i post shit that hurts their feelings. i'm fine with watching the decay and depravity unfold in silence. it's avoidable at this point anyway.

Paying just makes them look bad twice, the first time was losing the data.. Now they just supported ransomware attacks to increase.

at it's finest. When will people learn

'The company says it received "digital confirmation" that the information was destroyed and that affected schools and students would not be extorted. The BBC reports.'

For a company that makes education software, they sure must think their customers and users are pretty stupid.

Sure they deleted it. Now, how long before the 'deleted data' starts showing up elsewhere? Any guesses?

So, they're using an AI tool to automate "looking like" they're using AI? It's AI all the way down? AI driving AI? Maybe Amazon can luck out and just have a whole bunch of AI systems driving other AI systems without needing any employees? AND THE FANTASY CAN BECOME REAL!

Especially when people look at everything from socioeconomic level.

Definitely will have more spare money.

But do you believe that the wealthy are indolent or something? Many of my peers are in the millionaire class, and they work hard and long. And more than a few are highly stressed.

It is fortunate that there are many other forms of art, some that require little more than a sketchpad and pencils. I know what you are talking about a little, as my parents would not get me an instrument when I wanted to join the school band. So I got a part time job after school, saved my money, bought a Fender Bass and amp, and was making around 100 dollars a week in 1970. Not too bad for a 10th grader.

Art is creating things, not spending money. You can pick an art form that requires money, but it is not mandatory. You can even just buy a knife and carve found wood.

You're talking to a guy who regularly worked 60 hours a week, and more than a few occasions 100 hours.

Oh man! My art is my de-stressing. Wonder what the difference is? How does someone de-stress when they cannot even make sketches, maybe sing, or do anything?

Slashdot has a lot of tech people in here. I wonder if they actually understand art?

They are (replacing?) Chromebooks. Just one example, the next time my seventy-three-year-old mother destroys her Chromebook, she'll probably wind up getting a Googlebook.

And she'll be utterly baffled and probably angry thinking she "got hacked" every time she accidentally shakes the mouse.

Lots of people buy tech like this. They just need a cheap laptop. They're just using what they're school/job provides. Lots of people who use Chromebooks didn't buy them at all.

Given that big companies have already made it clear that they think AI will let them do the same work with fewer people, and given that using AI costs the company a lot in terms of compute resources, it seems intuitively obvious that the only reason execs would want to encourage more AI use is to find out what jobs can easily have their headcount reduced by more use of AI.

The people using the most tokens are the ones for whom more of their jobs can be most easily automated. This is not, IMO, a positive sign for the long-term survival of that particular job role. The only rational response is to use AI just enough to show a speed-up, assuming the speed-up actually happens at all, but not enough to be high up on the chart of AI users. Using it way more than that seems self-defeating.

FTS :

37% of classical music listeners in the UK are aged 16-34, debunking the "graying audience" myth

I'm not certain how that jibes with the common meme that Boomers sucked up all the money, and GenZ people are poor.

One-third of classical music fans live in households earning over $100,000 annually

Which is another way of saying two-thirds are living in households making under $100,000 annually

From the other report, I was gobsmacked when they wrote:

Proportionately fewer baby boomers have advanced into top professional and high-salaried positions, despite their advanced degrees.

Wait... what? the boomers, who are claimed to hoard all their money to themselves, won't retire because they refuse to give up their big money, and aer generally the cause of every problem on earth is that? I've been told by millennial and Genders that they can hardly wait for us to die so they stand a chance of fixing everything. I mean, we are hated. That's a shock.

What I am seeing, from the scope of those two reports/studies is that there are wide demographics interested in the Arts, and I have no doubt that interest in the arts is an enhancement to life. I do not see that the poor are excluded. I do not see that the poor have zero time to appreciate art. But that's just me.

Let them build them, but they must build the power for it first - built and paid for by themselves before the data center itself can break ground.

Leaches and damned leaches, they even stole my cheap RAM.

Yeah, that was confusing. But Kenya's president is almost certainly wrong. Here's why:

1. It is not numerically correct, assuming the numbers in the summary are accurate. The country has a surplus adequate to power the data center at somewhere around half to three-quarters capacity even at peak power use, and probably at full capacity for 99 days out of 100. So even if they built it at full capacity right off the bat and did nothing else, you'd still only lose power to a small fraction of Kenya occasionally.

2. They're not building it at full capacity. They're building a small data center at first, then building it up over time as more generating capacity comes online.

3. They're a reliable customer of power. That means that they will alway pay the bill, even if it is high. The grid operators and generation plant operators can charge them a huge premium for bulk power, then use that extra revenue to build more power plants. By the time the data center is running at full capacity, they could have more than enough power to power it.

4. Even if that extra investment in production doesn't happen, they can just refuse to provide the additional power from the grid. I'm sure Microsoft knows how to do solar + storage by now, and if not, they can pay someone to do it for them who does. Or they can build their own geothermal plant right next to the existing one. Or they can do any number of other things to produce power, like installing an SMR.

5. Nothing inherently prevents them from reducing power usage during peak load periods. Service will get slower, but should gracefully degrade, assuming they're doing it right. Nobody will lose power, realistically speaking.

It is unfortunate that so many people look at these data centers and the current worst-case state of resource availability and conclude wrongly that they are infeasible, but this is a common mistake made by planners, legislators, and members of the general public. They fail to account for how the existence of the data center with its need for resources will trigger the production of facilities to exploit previously unusable resources and make them available, and they fail to recognize that in a true power emergency, they can just turn 90% of it off and shift the load to other data centers.

But the reality of the matter is that nobody is going to build a gigawatt of additional power capacity in Kenya unless the government or some private company that needs power pays them to do it. They already have a 23 to 30% surplus compared with their worst-case power consumption. That means that adding more production will just drive power prices down, so they'll get less money for the power they produce.

But as soon as someone like Microsoft starts needing enough power to pull those margins down, suddenly additional capacity becomes economically feasible, and you'll see either existing power companies expanding or new power companies entering the market. And the existence of an all-but-guaranteed higher future demand is the key to making that happen. Without the data center being approved, that motive to expand does not exist, and the grid will likely stay at or near its currently levels unless the government forces the hand of the market by paying someone to build more generating capacity.