If you’re giving a commencement speech in 2026, maybe don’t mention AI | TechCrunch
Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.
Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”
“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”
“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.
But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”
To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”
Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022.
“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” Merchant wrote.
Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”
Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.
Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.
Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”
“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”
“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar response when he brought up AI at a University of Arizona speech on Friday.
In Schmidt’s case, the criticism actually began before the speech itself, with some student groups calling for him to be removed as commencement speaker due to a lawsuit in which a former girlfriend and business partner accused Schmidt of sexual assault. (He has denied the allegations.) According to a local news report, the booing began even before Schmidt took the stage.
But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”
To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”
Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022.
That pessimism isn’t solely a response to the rise of AI (a shift that even tech industry workers are worried about), but journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant suggested that for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”
“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” Merchant wrote.
Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”
Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.
Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Source link
#youre #giving #commencement #speech #dont #mention #TechCrunch
Garmin has something for you. The company has just launched the Garmin Forerunner 70 and Garmin Forerunner 170 series, two new running-focused smartwatches aimed at beginners and everyday fitness users. Both watches feature AMOLED displays, touchscreen support, and Garmin’s traditional five-button design that long-time users will instantly recognize.
Interestingly, Garmin isn’t positioning these as premium athlete-first devices. Instead, the focus here seems to be accessibility. The company says the new watches are designed to help users start their fitness journey while still bringing in several advanced training features from Garmin’s higher-end Forerunner lineup.
What’s the Forerunner 70 and the Forerunner 170 About?
The Garmin Forerunner 70 is built for people who want the essentials without getting overwhelmed. It comes with built-in GPS, wrist-based heart rate tracking, pace and distance monitoring, and quick workout suggestions based on fitness level and intensity preferences. Garmin is also bringing over features like Garmin Coach, daily suggested workouts, sleep tracking, Pulse Ox monitoring, HRV status, and training readiness tools. There are over 80 built-in sports modes as well, including swimming, cycling, and strength training.
Battery life also looks pretty solid. Garmin claims the watch can last up to 13 days in smartwatch mode, which is honestly refreshing in a world where most wearables still need charging every other day. The watch will be available in colors like citron, lavender, black, and whitestone.
On the other hand, the Garmin Forerunner 170 takes things a step further by adding additional recovery and performance-tracking tools. It includes features like training status, training readiness, and more structured Garmin Coach plans for runners training toward specific goals. Garmin is also launching a Music version of the watch, which will be available in brighter color variants like teal green and red pink. Battery life on the Forerunner 170 series is rated at up to 10 days in smartwatch mode.
The new Forerunner 70 and 170 series will launch in India in June 2026 after import certifications are completed. Garmin hasn’t revealed pricing yet.
Garmin has something for you. The company has just launched the Garmin Forerunner 70 and Garmin Forerunner 170 series, two new running-focused smartwatches aimed at beginners and everyday fitness users. Both watches feature AMOLED displays, touchscreen support, and Garmin’s traditional five-button design that long-time users will instantly recognize.
Interestingly, Garmin isn’t positioning these as premium athlete-first devices. Instead, the focus here seems to be accessibility. The company says the new watches are designed to help users start their fitness journey while still bringing in several advanced training features from Garmin’s higher-end Forerunner lineup.
What’s the Forerunner 70 and the Forerunner 170 About?
The Garmin Forerunner 70 is built for people who want the essentials without getting overwhelmed. It comes with built-in GPS, wrist-based heart rate tracking, pace and distance monitoring, and quick workout suggestions based on fitness level and intensity preferences. Garmin is also bringing over features like Garmin Coach, daily suggested workouts, sleep tracking, Pulse Ox monitoring, HRV status, and training readiness tools. There are over 80 built-in sports modes as well, including swimming, cycling, and strength training.
Battery life also looks pretty solid. Garmin claims the watch can last up to 13 days in smartwatch mode, which is honestly refreshing in a world where most wearables still need charging every other day. The watch will be available in colors like citron, lavender, black, and whitestone.
On the other hand, the Garmin Forerunner 170 takes things a step further by adding additional recovery and performance-tracking tools. It includes features like training status, training readiness, and more structured Garmin Coach plans for runners training toward specific goals. Garmin is also launching a Music version of the watch, which will be available in brighter color variants like teal green and red pink. Battery life on the Forerunner 170 series is rated at up to 10 days in smartwatch mode.
The new Forerunner 70 and 170 series will launch in India in June 2026 after import certifications are completed. Garmin hasn’t revealed pricing yet.
#Garmin #Launches #Forerunner #Smartwatches #RunnersGarmin">Garmin Launches Forerunner 70 and 170 Smartwatches for Runners
Running watches have slowly evolved from being niche gadgets meant only for marathon runners into something much more mainstream. If you’re in the market for a running watch, the Garmin has something for you. The company has just launched the Garmin Forerunner 70 and Garmin Forerunner 170 series, two new running-focused smartwatches aimed at beginners and everyday fitness users. Both watches feature AMOLED displays, touchscreen support, and Garmin’s traditional five-button design that long-time users will instantly recognize.
Interestingly, Garmin isn’t positioning these as premium athlete-first devices. Instead, the focus here seems to be accessibility. The company says the new watches are designed to help users start their fitness journey while still bringing in several advanced training features from Garmin’s higher-end Forerunner lineup.
What’s the Forerunner 70 and the Forerunner 170 About?
The Garmin Forerunner 70 is built for people who want the essentials without getting overwhelmed. It comes with built-in GPS, wrist-based heart rate tracking, pace and distance monitoring, and quick workout suggestions based on fitness level and intensity preferences. Garmin is also bringing over features like Garmin Coach, daily suggested workouts, sleep tracking, Pulse Ox monitoring, HRV status, and training readiness tools. There are over 80 built-in sports modes as well, including swimming, cycling, and strength training.
Battery life also looks pretty solid. Garmin claims the watch can last up to 13 days in smartwatch mode, which is honestly refreshing in a world where most wearables still need charging every other day. The watch will be available in colors like citron, lavender, black, and whitestone.
On the other hand, the Garmin Forerunner 170 takes things a step further by adding additional recovery and performance-tracking tools. It includes features like training status, training readiness, and more structured Garmin Coach plans for runners training toward specific goals. Garmin is also launching a Music version of the watch, which will be available in brighter color variants like teal green and red pink. Battery life on the Forerunner 170 series is rated at up to 10 days in smartwatch mode.
The new Forerunner 70 and 170 series will launch in India in June 2026 after import certifications are completed. Garmin hasn’t revealed pricing yet.
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
#Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX">Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”
I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?
Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.
To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”
Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.
On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.
He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).
Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.
Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.
The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.
In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.
The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.
The Oklahoma bill “recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. “And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”
In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.
These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.
Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated
Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.
Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.
Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.
Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.
The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.
In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.
The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.
The Oklahoma bill “recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. “And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”
In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.
These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.
Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated
Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.
Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.
#Oil #Gas #Wells #Find #Life #Producing #Clean #Energyenvironment,energy,climate change,climate desk,policy">Old Oil and Gas Wells Could Find Second Life Producing Clean Energy
As states seek out much-needed supplies of clean, reliable energy, some are looking to an unconventional source: abandoned oil and gas wells harnessed for geothermal heat.
Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.
Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.
The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.
In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.
The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.
The Oklahoma bill “recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. “And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”
In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.
These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.
Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated
Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.
Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.
![If you’re giving a commencement speech in 2026, maybe don’t mention AI | TechCrunch
Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.
Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”
“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”
“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwYkHS8jvSE[/embed]
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar response when he brought up AI at a University of Arizona speech on Friday.
In Schmidt’s case, the criticism actually began before the speech itself, with some student groups calling for him to be removed as commencement speaker due to a lawsuit in which a former girlfriend and business partner accused Schmidt of sexual assault. (He has denied the allegations.) According to a local news report, the booing began even before Schmidt took the stage.
But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”
To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”
Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022.
That pessimism isn’t solely a response to the rise of AI (a shift that even tech industry workers are worried about), but journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant suggested that for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”
“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” Merchant wrote.
Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”
Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.
Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#youre #giving #commencement #speech #dont #mention #TechCrunchcommencement speeches,Eric Schmidt,gloria caulfield](https://i3.wp.com/techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/university.jpg?resize=1200%2C641&ssl=1 "If you’re giving a commencement speech in 2026, maybe don’t mention AI | TechCrunch
Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.
Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”
“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”
“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwYkHS8jvSE[/embed]
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar response when he brought up AI at a University of Arizona speech on Friday.
In Schmidt’s case, the criticism actually began before the speech itself, with some student groups calling for him to be removed as commencement speaker due to a lawsuit in which a former girlfriend and business partner accused Schmidt of sexual assault. (He has denied the allegations.) According to a local news report, the booing began even before Schmidt took the stage.
But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”
To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”
Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022.
That pessimism isn’t solely a response to the rise of AI (a shift that even tech industry workers are worried about), but journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant suggested that for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”
“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” Merchant wrote.
Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”
Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.
Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#youre #giving #commencement #speech #dont #mention #TechCrunchcommencement speeches,Eric Schmidt,gloria caulfield")
![Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX](https://i1.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/03/elon-musk-laughing-1-1280x897.jpeg?ssl=1 "Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX")
![Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/03/elon-musk-laughing-1-1280x897.jpeg "Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.
In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.
The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”
So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of: Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026 “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.
For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice). #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX")
Post Comment