Slashdot

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Guardian: James and Owen were among 41 students who took a coding module at the University of Staffordshire last year, hoping to change careers through a government-funded apprenticeship programme designed to help them become cybersecurity experts or software engineers. But after a term of AI-generated slides being read, at times, by an AI voiceover, James said he had lost faith in the programme and the people running it, worrying he had "used up two years" of his life on a course that had been done "in the cheapest way possible". "If we handed in stuff that was AI-generated, we would be kicked out of the uni, but we're being taught by an AI," said James during a confrontation with his lecturer recorded as a part of the course in October 2024. James and other students confronted university officials multiple times about the AI materials. But the university appears to still be using AI-generated materials to teach the course. This year, the university uploaded a policy statement to the course website appearing to justify the use of AI, laying out "a framework for academic professionals leveraging AI automation" in scholarly work and teaching... For students, AI teaching appears to be less transformative than it is demoralising. In the US, students post negative online reviews about professors who use AI. In the UK, undergraduates have taken to Reddit to complain about their lecturers copying and pasting feedback from ChatGPT or using AI-generated images in courses. "I feel like a bit of my life was stolen," James told the Guardian (which also quotes an unidentified student saying they felt "robbed of knowledge and enjoyment".) But the article also points out that a survey last year of 3,287 higher-education teaching staff by edtech firm Jisc found that nearly a quarter were using AI tools in their teaching.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Forbes: On November 20, at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern time, Napster held an online meeting for its shareholders; an estimated 700 of roughly 1,500 including employees, former employees and individual investors tuned in. That's when its CEO John Acunto told everyone he believed that the never-identified big investor — who the company had insisted put in $3.36 billion at a $12 billion valuation in January, which would have made it one of the year's biggest fundraises — was not going to come through. In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a "victim of misconduct," adding that it was "assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations." As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. "Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur," the company wrote in the email. At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they've been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise "were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate." The article notes America's Department of Justice has launched an investigation (in which Napster is not a target), while the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate ongoing investigation from 2022 into Napster's scrapped reverse merger. While Napster announced they'd been acquired for $207 million by a tech company named Infinite Reality, Forbes says that company faced "a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google. The company also touted 'top-tier' investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in "an Infinite Reality account and is available to us" and that they were 'actively leveraging' it..." And by the end, "Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators.... If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Pew Research surveyed 5,022 Americans this year (between February 5 and June 18), asking them "do you ever use" YouTube, Facebook, and nine of the other top social media platforms. The results? YouTube 84% Facebook 71% Instagram 50% TikTok 37% WhatsApp 32% Reddit 26% Snapchat 25% X.com (formerly Twitter) 21% Threads 8% Bluesky 4% Truth Social 3% An announcement from Pew Research adds some trends and demographics: The Center has long tracked use of many of these platforms. Over the past few years, four of them have grown in overall use among U.S. adults — TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp and Reddit. 37% of U.S. adults report using TikTok, which is slightly up from last year and up from 21% in 2021. Half of U.S. adults now report using Instagram, which is on par with last year but up from 40% in 2021. About a third say they use WhatsApp, up from 23% in 2021. And 26% today report using Reddit, compared with 18% four years ago. While YouTube and Facebook continue to sit at the top, the shares of Americans who report using them have remained relatively stable in recent years... YouTube and Facebook are the only sites asked about that a majority in all age groups use, though for YouTube, the youngest adults are still the most likely to do so. This differs from Facebook, where 30- to 49-year-olds most commonly say they use it (80%). Other interesting statistics: "More than half of women report using Instagram (55%), compared with under half of men (44%). Alternatively, men are more likely to report using platforms such as X and Reddit." "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely to report using WhatsApp, Reddit, TikTok, Bluesky and Threads."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Theia crashed into earth and formed the moon, the theory goes. But then where did Theia come from? The lead author on a new study says "The most convincing scenario is that most of the building blocks of Earth and Theia originated in the inner Solar System. Earth and Theia are likely to have been neighbors." Though Theia was completely destroyed in the collision, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research led a team that was able to measure the ratio of tell-tale isotopes in Earth and Moon rocks, Euronews explains: The research team used rocks collected on Earth and samples brought back from the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts to examine their isotopes. These isotopes act like chemical fingerprints. Scientists already knew that Earth and Moon rocks are almost identical in their metal isotope ratios. That similarity, however, has made it hard to learn much about Theia, because it has been difficult to separate material from early Earth and material from the impactor. The new research attempts a kind of planetary reverse engineering. By examining isotopes of iron, chromium, zirconium and molybdenum, the team modelled hundreds of possible scenarios for the early Earth and Theia, testing which combinations could produce the isotope signatures seen today. Because materials closer to the Sun formed under different temperatures and conditions than those further out, those isotopes exist in slightly different patterns in different regions of the Solar System. By comparing these patterns, researchers concluded that Theia most likely originated in the inner Solar System, even closer to the Sun than the early Earth. The team published their findings in the journal Science. Its title? "The Moon-forming impactor Theia originated from the inner Solar System."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In October cryptologist/CS professor Daniel J. Bernstein alleged that America's National Security Agency (and its UK counterpart GCHQ) were attempting to influence NIST to adopt weaker post-quantum cryptography standards without a "hybrid" approach that would've also included pre-quantum ECC. Bernstein is of the opinion that "Given how many post-quantum proposals have been broken and the continuing flood of side-channel attacks, any competent engineering evaluation will conclude that the best way to deploy post-quantum [PQ] encryption for TLS, and for the Internet more broadly, is as double encryption: post-quantum cryptography on top of ECC." But he says he's seen it playing out differently: By 2013, NSA had a quarter-billion-dollar-a-year budget to "covertly influence and/or overtly leverage" systems to "make the systems in question exploitable"; in particular, to "influence policies, standards and specification for commercial public key technologies". NSA is quietly using stronger cryptography for the data it cares about, but meanwhile is spending money to promote a market for weakened cryptography, the same way that it successfully created decades of security failures by building up the market for, e.g., 40-bit RC4 and 512-bit RSA and Dual EC. I looked concretely at what was happening in IETF's TLS working group, compared to the consensus requirements for standards-development organizations. I reviewed how a call for "adoption" of an NSA-driven specification produced a variety of objections that weren't handled properly. ("Adoption" is a preliminary step before IETF standardization....) On 5 November 2025, the chairs issued "last call" for objections to publication of the document. The deadline for input is "2025-11-26", this coming Wednesday. Bernstein also shares concerns about how the Internet Engineering Task Force is handling the discussion, and argues that the document is even "out of scope" for the IETF TLS working group This document doesn't serve any of the official goals in the TLS working group charter. Most importantly, this document is directly contrary to the "improve security" goal, so it would violate the charter even if it contributed to another goal... Half of the PQ proposals submitted to NIST in 2017 have been broken already... often with attacks having sufficiently low cost to demonstrate on readily available computer equipment. Further PQ software has been broken by implementation issues such as side-channel attacks. He's also concerned about how that discussion is being handled: On 17 October 2025, they posted a "Notice of Moderation for Postings by D. J. Bernstein" saying that they would "moderate the postings of D. J. Bernstein for 30 days due to disruptive behavior effective immediately" and specifically that my postings "will be held for moderation and after confirmation by the TLS Chairs of being on topic and not disruptive, will be released to the list"... I didn't send anything to the IETF TLS mailing list for 30 days after that. Yesterday [November 22nd] I finished writing up my new objection and sent that in. And, gee, after more than 24 hours it still hasn't appeared... Presumably the chairs "forgot" to flip the censorship button off after 30 days. Thanks to alanw (Slashdot reader #1,822) for spotting the blog posts.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.