DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 5

Senator Sanders Calls for AI Data Center Freeze, Warning of Environmental Strain, Job Losses, and a Power Grab by Big Tech

0

Senator Bernie Sanders has escalated the debate over artificial intelligence infrastructure by calling for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers in the United States, arguing that the technology’s rapid expansion is racing ahead of democratic oversight while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few technology giants.

In a post on X this week, Sanders said a pause would give lawmakers time to determine how AI should serve the public interest rather than “just the 1 percent.” The Vermont senator framed the current AI boom not as a neutral wave of innovation, but as an economic and political shift driven by ultra-wealthy executives who stand to gain enormously while communities bear the environmental, social, and fiscal costs.

At the heart of Sanders’ argument is the scale and intensity of modern AI infrastructure. Data centers built to train and run large language models consume vast amounts of electricity and water, often far exceeding the demands of traditional cloud computing facilities. In some regions, proposed AI campuses are projected to use as much power as entire cities, forcing utilities to expand grids, build new power plants, or delay the retirement of fossil fuel facilities. Sanders argues those costs ultimately fall on taxpayers and ratepayers, not the companies profiting from AI.

Water use has become an equally contentious issue. Many AI data centers rely on water-intensive cooling systems, raising alarms in drought-prone states and rural communities already facing scarcity. Local opposition has intensified in parts of the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast, where residents say they are being asked to trade long-term environmental sustainability for short-term economic promises that may never fully materialize.

Sanders has also tied the data center buildout to fears about automation and job displacement. He has repeatedly warned that AI and robotics could eliminate millions of jobs across sectors ranging from customer service and administration to logistics and manufacturing. While companies often argue that AI will create new roles and boost productivity, Sanders contends that history shows productivity gains rarely translate into higher wages or job security without strong labor protections.

Those concerns have been reinforced by warnings from within the AI industry itself. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has said AI could wipe out as many as half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years. Sanders has cited such statements as evidence that policymakers are unprepared for the speed and scale of disruption AI could bring if deployment continues unchecked.

The senator’s call for a moratorium comes as AI infrastructure spending accelerates at an extraordinary pace. Major technology firms are investing tens of billions of dollars annually in new data centers, advanced chips, and long-term energy contracts in a bid to outspend rivals and lock in dominance. That arms race, Sanders argues, is less about meeting current demand and more about consolidating control over the digital economy.

He has also questioned why public resources are being marshaled to support private AI ambitions. State and local governments frequently offer tax breaks, subsidized land, and infrastructure upgrades to attract data center projects, even as schools, housing, and public services remain underfunded. Sanders says this model mirrors earlier periods of industrial consolidation, where public support helped create private monopolies with limited accountability.

It is not certain that Sanders’ proposal will gain traction in Congress. A nationwide moratorium would face stiff resistance from the tech industry and lawmakers who see AI as central to U.S. economic competitiveness. Still, his stance reflects a broader shift in the conversation around artificial intelligence.

The debate is no longer confined to innovation and growth, but increasingly focused on who controls the infrastructure, who pays the hidden costs, and who benefits from the transformation. The question is no longer whether AI will reshape society, but whether governments will assert enough oversight to ensure that its benefits are shared broadly rather than captured by a narrow elite.

Nvidia’s Reported RTX 50 Supply Cuts Signal a Memory Squeeze, and a Strategic Pivot with Consequences for Gamers

0

Recent reports from Asia are sharpening concerns that Nvidia may significantly scale back production of its GeForce RTX 50 series graphics cards in the first half of 2026, not because of weak demand alone, but due to tightening memory supply across the board.

According to industry sources cited by China-based outlet BoBantang and amplified by hardware site Benchlife, Nvidia is preparing to reduce GeForce GPU output by as much as 30–40% compared with the same period in 2025.

At the center of the issue is memory. While early speculation focused narrowly on shortages of GDDR7, the newer and faster memory standard used in Nvidia’s latest GPUs, the reports suggest a broader crunch affecting multiple memory types. That points to a more systemic constraint tied to rising DRAM and NAND prices, which are already climbing sharply and feeding through the wider PC supply chain.

If accurate, the scale of the reported cuts is striking. A reduction of up to 40% in GeForce production would mark a major shift for Nvidia’s consumer graphics business, particularly given that there is no indication, at least so far, of similar reductions affecting the company’s non-GeForce or professional RTX PRO lineup.

That omission has fueled speculation that Nvidia may be reallocating scarce memory supplies toward its higher-margin, workstation- and enterprise-focused products, where profit per unit is substantially higher than in the mass-market gaming segment.

Benchlife reports that Nvidia could begin the adjustment by trimming output of specific models, notably the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB and the RTX 5070 Ti. From a commercial standpoint, those choices are telling. Both cards carry relatively large memory configurations, comparable in capacity to more expensive products like the RTX 5080. In a constrained environment, the same GDDR7 memory used in a mid-range GeForce card could instead be deployed in a premium SKU that delivers far greater margins.

This logic aligns with Nvidia’s broader business trajectory. Over the past several years, the company has increasingly prioritized segments that generate outsized returns, from data center accelerators to professional visualization and AI workloads. Even within gaming, Nvidia has shown a willingness to segment aggressively, offering lower-memory variants that are cheaper to produce while reserving higher VRAM capacities for pricier models.

For consumers, especially gamers, the implications are less encouraging. The RTX 5060 Ti 16GB has been widely viewed as a more future-proof option than its 8GB counterpart, offering enough video memory to handle modern games without heavy compromises in texture quality or performance. If production of the 16GB variant is curtailed, buyers may be nudged toward lower-memory cards that struggle with newer titles, or pushed up the pricing ladder to more expensive GPUs.

Industry sources cited by Benchlife say that Nvidia’s add-in card partners and component suppliers have also been briefed that the RTX 5070 Ti and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB will be among the first models affected. That suggests the reported strategy is not merely speculative but is already being communicated along the supply chain, even if Nvidia itself has not publicly confirmed any such plans.

This comes when DDR5 memory prices have already surged, and analysts expect those increases to ripple into GPU pricing as manufacturers grapple with higher input costs. In such an environment, prioritizing lower-memory cards and premium, high-margin products becomes an obvious defensive move for suppliers, even if it leaves mainstream buyers worse off.

The broader market impact is harder to pin down. A deliberate reduction in GeForce output raises the risk of tighter supply, particularly if demand remains steady or rebounds in 2026. That, in turn, could put upward pressure on GPU prices, reviving dynamics that consumers experienced painfully during previous shortages, when limited availability and strong demand combined to push prices far above suggested retail levels.

At the same time, the reported cuts could also reflect Nvidia tempering its expectations for PC and gaming demand next year. Higher memory costs, coupled with broader inflationary pressures, may weigh on consumer spending and slow upgrade cycles. In that scenario, trimming production would be as much about avoiding excess inventory as it is about managing scarce components.

What is clear is that memory has emerged as a strategic bottleneck, not just a technical one. If GDDR7 and other memory supplies remain tight, Nvidia’s decisions about where to deploy those resources will shape the graphics market in 2026, determining which products are plentiful, which are scarce, and how much consumers ultimately pay.

However, the reports are pointing to a familiar pattern: when constraints bite, Nvidia appears inclined to protect margins first. Some analysts believe that whether this leads to another period of elevated prices and limited choice for gamers will depend on how severe the memory crunch becomes—and how quickly the supply chain can respond.

FTC Orders Nomad to Repay Users After $186 Million Crypto Bridge Hack

0

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has moved to hold Illusory Systems, which operated the cryptocurrency bridge Nomad, financially accountable for one of the most damaging crypto security breaches of 2022, accusing the company of overstating the safety of its platform while failing to meet basic cybersecurity standards.

In a proposed settlement agreement released this week, the FTC said Nomad must repay users who lost funds in the cyberattack that ultimately drained about $186 million from the bridge. While some assets were later recovered, regulators estimate customers were left with losses of roughly $100 million.

The FTC’s complaint centers on events leading up to the breach. According to the agency, Nomad deployed a software update in June 2022 that contained what it described as “inadequately tested code.” That update allegedly introduced a critical vulnerability, which attackers exploited about a month later, triggering a rapid and chaotic drain of funds from the bridge. The incident quickly became one of the most widely cited examples of how fragile cross-chain infrastructure can be when security controls fail.

Nomad had marketed itself at the time as a “security-first” blockchain bridge, a claim the FTC says was not backed up by its internal practices. The agency alleges the company failed to adopt secure coding standards, did not maintain an effective vulnerability management program, and lacked safeguards that could have limited the scale of losses once the breach began. It also said Nomad’s incident response capabilities were insufficient, allowing the exploit to spiral and compounding user losses.

Under the proposed settlement, Nomad would be required to repay about $37.5 million to users who remain out of pocket. The payment would be due within one year of the agreement being finalized, or within 30 days after the conclusion of any related litigation, whichever comes later. The FTC acknowledged that the amount falls well short of total losses but framed the repayment as a concrete step toward restitution.

Beyond financial redress, the settlement imposes significant operational requirements. Nomad would have to establish a comprehensive security program, designate a specific employee responsible for maintaining it, and submit to regular third-party security assessments. The company would also be permanently barred from making misrepresentations about the security of its products, a restriction aimed at preventing similar claims in future ventures.

Nomad has agreed to the proposed terms. The settlement will now go through a public comment period before returning to the FTC for a second and final vote, a standard process for agency enforcement actions.

“This case sends a clear message,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures. It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.”

The case also highlights the challenges of accountability in the crypto sector years after high-profile failures. Nomad today has a minimal digital footprint. Public communications have been absent since 2023, and its website provides no clear contact information, underscoring how difficult it can be for affected users to seek answers long after a platform has effectively gone dark.

The action against Nomad, however, signals a continued willingness to use consumer protection laws to police cybersecurity claims in crypto and fintech, even when companies are no longer active. For users, it offers limited financial recovery, but also a rare acknowledgment from a U.S. regulator that exaggerated security promises in the crypto market can carry real consequences.

Coursera to Merge with Udemy in $2.5bn All-Stock Deal, Marking a Turning Point for Online Education

0

Coursera and Udemy on Wednesday announced a landmark merger agreement valued at about $2.5 billion, bringing together two of the world’s most prominent online learning platforms at a time of rapid technological change and mounting investor pressure.

Under the terms of the deal, Coursera will acquire Udemy in an all-stock transaction, creating a combined company with a broad reach across individual learners, enterprises, and professional instructors. The companies said the merger is expected to close in the second half of next year, subject to regulatory approvals and shareholder consent.

The agreement comes against a challenging backdrop for both firms. Despite posting revenue growth in the third quarter of 2025, Coursera and Udemy have struggled to convince investors of their long-term growth narratives. Their shares have trended lower over the past year, reflecting concerns about slowing user growth, rising competition, and questions over how quickly online education platforms can translate engagement into sustained profitability.

By combining forces, the two companies are betting that scale, complementary strengths, and a more aggressive push into artificial intelligence can help reverse that skepticism.

Udemy CEO Hugo Sarrazin framed the deal as a way to unlock shareholder value while strengthening the platforms’ offerings.

“Through this combination with Coursera, we will create meaningful benefits for our learners, enterprise customers, and instructors, while delivering significant value to our shareholders, who will participate in the substantial upside potential of the combined company,” he said.

Coursera and Udemy have historically served overlapping but distinct segments of the market. Coursera has built its reputation around university partnerships, professional certificates, and degree-linked programs, while Udemy has focused more heavily on a marketplace model driven by individual instructors and enterprise training for businesses. Executives say the merger will allow the combined company to offer a more comprehensive learning ecosystem, spanning academic credentials, workforce reskilling, and on-demand professional training.

Artificial intelligence sits at the center of the strategic rationale. Both companies have moved quickly this year to embed AI into their platforms, positioning it as a tool to personalize learning, shorten course formats, and better align content with evolving job requirements. Sarrazin said the merger would accelerate the rollout of AI-powered products, as the online learning market expands alongside the adoption of AI across industries.

Coursera recently announced an integration with OpenAI’s ChatGPT app ecosystem and a content partnership with Anthropic, signaling its intent to stay close to the cutting edge of generative AI. Udemy, meanwhile, rolled out a new “AI-powered microlearning experience” earlier this week, designed to deliver shorter, more targeted lessons tailored to learners’ schedules and skill gaps.

The companies also see the deal as a way to address a structural shift in the labor market. As AI reshapes workflows, demand for continuous reskilling has intensified. Job postings requiring AI-related skills have surged in recent years, and surveys suggest a growing share of employers now view AI literacy as a baseline requirement rather than a niche qualification.

“We’re at a pivotal moment in which AI is rapidly redefining the skills required for every job across every industry,” Coursera CEO Greg Hart said. “Organizations and individuals around the world need a platform that is as agile as the new and emerging skills learners must master.”

Still, the merger faces hurdles. Regulatory scrutiny is likely, given the scale of the combined platform and its influence over a fast-growing segment of digital education. Investors will also be watching closely for details on cost synergies, integration risks, and whether the deal can deliver the growth and margin expansion that both companies have struggled to achieve on their own.

Overall, the agreement signals consolidation in an industry that boomed during the pandemic but has since entered a more demanding phase. With AI transforming both how people learn and what they need to learn, Coursera and Udemy are betting that size, technology, and a unified strategy will be enough to regain momentum and restore confidence in the future of online education.

“Too Late to Return”: PayPal’s Africa Wallet Ambitions Rekindle Old Wounds Among Nigerian Users, Face Backlash

0

Nigerians have expressed strong criticism over PayPal’s proposed expansion into Africa following reports that the global payments giant is in talks with African fintech companies to launch a cross-border digital wallet platform in 2026.

The planned platform, known as PayPal World, is designed to enable interoperability between global and local digital wallets. Through this system, users would be able to make cross-border payments or shop internationally using a PayPal button connected to their local digital wallets, without the need to open a traditional PayPal account.

Despite the promise of seamless global payments, the announcement has reopened long-standing frustrations among Nigerians, many of whom argue that PayPal’s re-entry comes far too late. Many point to years of restrictions that limited economic opportunities for freelancers, remote workers, and digital entrepreneurs, forcing them to seek alternatives.

Background Story

In the early 2000s, around 2004, PayPal placed heavy restrictions on several sub-Saharan African countries, including Nigeria. While the company did not completely ban Nigerian users, it prevented them from receiving payments, citing high fraud risks linked to stolen credit cards and online scams originating from the region.

At the time, Nigerians could send money through PayPal but were largely unable to withdraw funds to local bank accounts. Although PayPal described the restrictions as temporary, the ban persisted for nearly two decades.

In 2014/2025, PayPal briefly allowed some inflow capabilities, but full merchant functionality remained unavailable, leaving many users excluded from the global digital economy.

Public Reaction in Nigeria

Following news of PayPal’s renewed interest in Africa, Nigerian users across social media have expressed anger and disappointment, describing the move as opportunistic amid new tax regulations.

Many recalled losing access to foreign jobs, freelance gigs, surveys, and remote work opportunities because PayPal was often the only payment option available on global platforms.

Several commentators emphasized that Nigerians were forced to adapt during PayPal’s absence, leading to the rise of homegrown fintech solutions such as Cleva, Raenest, Grey Finance, and others. These platforms now serve thousands of freelancers and businesses, reducing dependence on international payment providers.

Others argued that PayPal underestimated Africa’s growing youth population and tech ecosystem and is only now attempting to tap into a market it previously ignored.

Check out some reactions on X,

@Technical Ben wrote,

“PayPal thinks they’re smart reopening Nigeria. Nigerians survived without them. We lost foreign jobs and gigs for years because of their restrictions, so we adapted. We built alternatives. We moved on. Now they’ve checked Africa’s youth stats and realized how much money they left on the table. Too late mate we have moved on.”

@Ede Ifeanyinchuku wrote,

Africa has the largest youth population and an exploding tech ecosystem, I guess they are just waking up to that reality and want to get their own slice of the pie. I would argue that they will have a  hard time competing with entrenched local players as well as the cultural nuances of winning trust in the African market.”

@Kami_iyo wrote,

“I lost a lot of transcription, survey, and some online jobs because PayPal is the only payment method and now they want to come back like nothing happened, that will never happen we will boycott them. I was in serious financial strain and had these opportunities I couldn’t touch”

@haroldsphinx wrote,

“If Nigerians have any sense of self-worth, they should actually boycott PayPal, there’s absolutely nothing in this life that can make me use PayPal again. This is when we should double down on supporting our own products that have solved that problem for us now”.

@Ossynoya wrote,

“PayPal will burn actually, they are one of the only global payment platforms that totally exclude Africans and Nigerians especially. And they literally gave the most stupid excuse for doing it. Now they want to stroll into the African market like nothing happened.”

@AbiodunØx wrote,

“I guess PayPal won’t fly in this part of the world. They went too far with the exclusionary policy [their excuse was lame]. The most annoying thing was when they only allowed us to send money and not receive it.”

@doctorwalesmd wrote,

“Grey Finance didn’t come this far for people like me to switch to PayPal if they ever decide to unblock services for Africans. They should kindly stay blocked. For me, they are no longer relevant here.”

A Changed Market Landscape

Nigeria’s fintech ecosystem has evolved significantly since PayPal first imposed restrictions. In 2025, the country hosts over 200 fintech startups processing an estimated $100 billion in transactions annually, according to central banking data. This growth has been driven largely by youth-led innovation, increased digital adoption, and solutions tailored to local needs.

As a result, PayPal is no longer entering an underserved market but one dominated by well-established local players with strong user loyalty and deep cultural understanding.

Outlook

PayPal’s planned expansion into Africa signals recognition of the continent’s economic potential, particularly its youthful population and fast-growing digital economy.

While PayPal World may offer technical advantages in cross-border interoperability, success in Nigeria will depend on more than infrastructure. Rebuilding trust, addressing historical grievances, and demonstrating long-term commitment to local markets will be critical. Without these, PayPal risks struggling against entrenched local fintech platforms that have already earned the confidence of Nigerian users.

Ultimately, PayPal’s return may reshape competition in Africa’s payments space, but in Nigeria, the battle will be as much about credibility and timing as it is about technology.