×
Stay Warm in the Lodge or Half-Pipe with the Best Ski Clothes

Stay Warm in the Lodge or Half-Pipe with the Best Ski Clothes

Honorable Mentions

During the winter, a whole WIRED crew tests ski clothes almost constantly. Here are a few other items that we like.

Courtesy of REI

Hestra Fall Line 3-Finger Gloves for $190: I’ve long admired Hestra gloves from across the lift line, impressed by the Swedish company’s elegant stitchwork and thoughtful design touches. This was the year I finally got to try a pair for myself, and the Fall Line are exactly what they look like. There are six sizes available so you can get the perfect fit in this glove. The cowhide is buttery smooth and has already broken in a bit with five days’ use. The wrist strap means you never have to fret about dropping your glove from the lift when checking your phone, and they’re very warm without making me sweat. If you do sweat, the lining is removable so you can wash it without damaging the leather. —Martin Cizmar

Image may contain Clothing Glove Baseball Baseball Glove and Sport

Courtesy of Crab Grab

Crab Grab Snuggler Mitts for $89: These mini sleeping bags for your fingers are packed full of Primaloft insulation and benefitting from a sherpa fleece lining, they are toasty warm, and with a 15K membrane, impressively waterproof too. All-season mittens with durable construction for under $100? Yes Please!

Image may contain Clothing Long Sleeve Sleeve Knitwear Sweater and Coat

Courtesy of Mons Royale

Mons Royale Yotei Merino Classic Long Sleeve for $98: As I type this, I’m nowhere near a mountain, but I’m still wearing the Mons Royale Yotei long sleeve top. It is ridiculously comfortable, made from 190-gsm-weight, 100 percent merino wool, and has a mercifully relaxed cut, so I remain warm, but don’t feel like a sausage. On the mountain however, the merino wool works its magic, wicking away sweat—especially on a hike up to some fresh powder—and keeping me comfortable. Paired with a shell and the Patagonia R1 Thermal Hoodie, I’m warm enough during a bitter arctic blast.

Person wearing an orange Seniq Powder Puff Down Jacket and bib while holding an orange snowboard upright with a snowy...

Seniq Powder Puff Down Jacket and Bib

Photograph: Kristin Canning

Seniq Powder Puff Down Jacket for $498 and Bib for $398: Seniq is another all-women’s outdoor brand that launched in 2024. It’s styled a little more Gen Z, leaning into fun color blocking over the monochromatic look. The Seniq Powder Puff Down Jacket has a dry-touch finish. It’s meant for drier days on the mountain, but a PFC-free DWR coating and YKK AquaGuard zippers do provide water resistance. The asymmetric front zipper helps you avoid chin rub when you have the jacket fully zipped. It also features cool asymmetrical quilting lines, side pockets-in-pockets that provide access to your bib (their bibs have a pocket on the front, so you can get in there without unzipping your jacket), an oversized removable hood, a forearm pass pocket, soft and stretchy wrist gaiters, and a large internal pocket that can absolutely handle a sandwich. This jacket was warm, pillowy, and comforting, like a super-soft hug.

The silky shell bibs are slightly barrel cut, which gives them a flattering shape without being fitted. The adjustable racer back-style straps and low back (with a stretchy waist) also provide a nice shape and breathability. There are two pockets on the front chest, pockets on either leg, two-way zip thigh vents, and a butt zipper for bathroom breaks. These fit easily over my boots, and the instep guards were a nice touch. With a durable three-layer membrane and a 20,000-mm waterproof rating, these will hold up against any and all weather the mountain throws at you. When I wore them on a wet snowy day, they beaded and sloughed off moisture well. —Kristin Canning

Person wearing a red Mammut Sender In Hooded Jacket with their hands in the pockets and a white door behind them

Mammut Sender In Hooded Jacket

Photograph: Kristin Canning

Mammut Sender In Hooded Jacket for $259: This puffy hoodie is a great mid-layer for under a shell jacket. The insulation is made from recycled rope scraps, and the outer is coated in wind-resistant PFC-free DWR coating. The hem falls at the hips, and the high collar and tight hood keep most of the face covered. I like wearing this piece under shells for snowboarding, but I know it’ll pull double duty as a comfy hiking and camping jacket, too, so it’s a solid multipurpose investment. It’s exceptionally lightweight and warm, though from a volume standpoint, it is on the bulkier side for a mid-layer and isn’t the most packable piece. —Kristin Canning

Helly Hansen Evolved Air Half Zip for $112: This fleece pullover has a waffle-like texture that traps heat and wicks moisture. With a high zippered collar and cinchable hem, you can adjust the fit to make it more air-tight or breathable. This mid-layer felt wonderfully lightweight while still keeping my toasty. It’s not bulky at all, only a little thicker than a base layer, laid comfortably under my jackets, and moved with me on the mountain. —Kristin Canning

Helly Hansen Lifa Base Layer Long-Sleeve Crew for $115 and Pants for $115: These base layers hit the weight sweet spot; they’re not too thick or thin, but just right. They’re slightly looser than other options on this list, so if you prefer something that isn’t so fitted, these are a great pick (but note that they run long too). These combine merino wool with Helly Hansen’s LIFA fibers, which add more moisture-wicking capabilities. They’re soft, lightweight, warm, and don’t hold onto smells. I love the cute designs and how well they regulate my temperature under insulated jackets and pants. The waist digs in a bit but doesn’t roll, and they stay in place and move well. —Kristin Canning

We have a full guide on how to layer, but here are your essentials.

Base layer: A good set of thermals is essential in the fight against cold, especially when you’re working hard. The best fabrics wick away sweat as you heat up, which helps regulate your temperature. Merino wool is the best at this, but also the most expensive. Synthetic fabrics are getting better, though, and please avoid cotton at all costs, as it gets wet and stays that way, making you cold and uncomfortable.

Mid layer: Whether you choose a hooded fleece or puffer-style jacket, this layer does the bulk of the work in cold conditions. Combined with the base layer, it traps warm air in, while also allowing moisture to be expelled. Synthetic insulation such as Primaloft Gold is brilliant and doesn’t lose its properties if it gets wet. Down jackets offer the best warmth-to-weight ratio, but they don’t pack down as small, and should never get wet. A fleece with an insulated vest is a great option if you really feel the cold.

Jacket: While ski jackets with insulation offer bonus warmth in Arctic-like conditions, for most people a waterproof shell will be enough, as it offers protection from both the snow and the wind. A cold wind will chill you to your bones faster than a bit of wet snow. Ideally choose a jacket with a waterproof membrane such as Gore-Tex (make sure it is free from PFAS, or forever chemicals), but also check for taped seams for added waterproofing, plus plenty of pockets for snacks and lift passes, and wrist cuffs and ski skirts to help keep out the snow.

Socks: As with your base layer, socks keep you warm and maintain your temperature when you’re building up a sweat. Natural fabrics work well, but a blend of merino wool with synthetic stretchy fibers is the way to go, as they stay up better and can be used for more than a day. Avoid cotton again, and never wear two pairs, as you’ll almost certainly get colder feet.

Gloves: You’ll be surprised by how wet ski gloves get when it’s snowing, even if you don’t fall very often. As a result, waterproof options work best in most cases, although well-made leather designs can be almost as waterproof as a pair with Gore-Tex. Mittens are generally warmer than gloves, but what you gain in toasty fingers you lose in dexterity. Check out our Best Ski Gloves and Mittens guide for more information.

Waterproofing and breathability ratings: Waterproofing is measured with a hydrostatic head rating, or HH. That means if you put a 1-inch, endlessly long square tube on top of the fabric, you could pour 20,000 millimeters of water before it would seep through. Breathability is rated in how many grams of vapor per square meter can can pass through the fabric in 24 hours.

I’ve been reviewing winter sports gear for more than 15 years. In that time, I have worn an untold number of jackets, pants, mid-layers, thermals, gloves, and mittens. I called on industry experts and professional skiers, and solicited opinions from fellow winter sport enthusiasts on the WIRED team. While a basic fit check can be done in the office, nothing replaces on-mountain testing in variable conditions. We put in the time on various trips to the French Alps, as well as in resorts in Vermont, Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Source link
#Stay #Warm #Lodge #HalfPipe #Ski #Clothes


Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.

The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.

Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.

“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.

Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.

It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.

Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.

All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.

“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”

Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”

Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.

Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.

The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.

Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.

Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.

The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.

#Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk">How Much Charity Would It Take for People to Like Elon Musk?
                Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls. The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away. Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.

 “Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes. Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.

 It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything. Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.

 All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about  trillion, to charity no later than 2036. “This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.” Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”  A proposed pledge for Elon Musk.An opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If money won’t matter in 2036, why don’t you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately  trillion to charity no later than 2036. This would establish with great credibility your… — Daron Acemoglu (@DAcemogluMIT) July 27, 2026  Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.

 Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out 4 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity. The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.

 Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on. Musk is currently worth about 5 billion, according to Forbes, well off the .4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost 0 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people. The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate .6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.      #Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk

latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.

The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.

Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.

“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.

Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.

It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.

Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.

All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.

“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”

Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”

Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.

Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.

The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.

Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.

Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.

The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.

#Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk">How Much Charity Would It Take for People to Like Elon Musk?How Much Charity Would It Take for People to Like Elon Musk?
                Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls. The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away. Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.

 “Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes. Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.

 It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything. Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.

 All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036. “This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.” Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”  A proposed pledge for Elon Musk.An opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If money won’t matter in 2036, why don’t you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036. This would establish with great credibility your… — Daron Acemoglu (@DAcemogluMIT) July 27, 2026  Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.

 Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity. The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.

 Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on. Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people. The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.      #Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk

Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.

The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.

Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.

“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.

Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.

It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.

Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.

All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.

“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”

Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”

Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.

Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.

The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.

Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.

Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.

The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.

#Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk

One of the most crucial parts of pulling off an unprecedented international plane ride for four beluga whales is making sure they don’t even realize that they’re on a trip. “The goal is that they notice as little as possible,” says Karisa Tang, the lead veterinarian and vice president of animal health at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium.

Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.

The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.

Image may contain Jonathan Cyprien Andreas Hestler Person Worker Adult Clothing Glove and Helmet

Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.

Photograph: Reuters

At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”

It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”

A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.

#Wild #Rescue #Mission #Beluga #Whales #Chicagoanimal behavior,biology,animals,zoos,marine science,science,whales,chicago,canada">Inside the Wild Rescue Mission That Took 4 Beluga Whales to ChicagoOne of the most crucial parts of pulling off an unprecedented international plane ride for four beluga whales is making sure they don’t even realize that they’re on a trip. “The goal is that they notice as little as possible,” says Karisa Tang, the lead veterinarian and vice president of animal health at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium.Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.
Photograph: ReutersAt that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.#Wild #Rescue #Mission #Beluga #Whales #Chicagoanimal behavior,biology,animals,zoos,marine science,science,whales,chicago,canada

whales is making sure they don’t even realize that they’re on a trip. “The goal is that they notice as little as possible,” says Karisa Tang, the lead veterinarian and vice president of animal health at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium.

Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.

The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.

Image may contain Jonathan Cyprien Andreas Hestler Person Worker Adult Clothing Glove and Helmet

Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.

Photograph: Reuters

At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”

It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”

A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.

#Wild #Rescue #Mission #Beluga #Whales #Chicagoanimal behavior,biology,animals,zoos,marine science,science,whales,chicago,canada">Inside the Wild Rescue Mission That Took 4 Beluga Whales to Chicago

One of the most crucial parts of pulling off an unprecedented international plane ride for four beluga whales is making sure they don’t even realize that they’re on a trip. “The goal is that they notice as little as possible,” says Karisa Tang, the lead veterinarian and vice president of animal health at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium.

Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.

The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.

Image may contain Jonathan Cyprien Andreas Hestler Person Worker Adult Clothing Glove and Helmet

Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.

Photograph: Reuters

At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”

It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”

A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.

#Wild #Rescue #Mission #Beluga #Whales #Chicagoanimal behavior,biology,animals,zoos,marine science,science,whales,chicago,canada

Post Comment