×
The best foldable phone you can buy

The best foldable phone you can buy

A foldable phone isn’t for the faint of heart. They’re generally heavier, pricier, and have less capable cameras than a standard slab-style phone. They’re also still not as durable as regular smartphones, though they’re not nearly as fragile as they once were. In fact, thanks to Google, we finally have a foldable phone we can take with us to the beach.

There are basically two kinds of foldables at the moment — the kind that fold like books and the ones that fold clamshell style, like your old flip phone. Here’s how I think of it: a book-style foldable is like a phone plus a tablet, and a flip-style foldable is a phone plus a smartwatch. The book foldables provide an outer screen for all your regular phone needs, and then a tablet-like inner screen when you want, well, more screen. Flip phones come with a smaller secondary display on the outer panel that’s useful for checking information quickly. When you need to do regular phone stuff, you unfold it.

What I’m looking for

There’s no shortcut to properly testing a phone; I put my personal SIM card (physical or otherwise) in each phone I review and live with it for a minimum of one full week. I set up each phone from scratch, load it up with my apps, and go about living my life — stress testing the battery, using GPS navigation on my bike while streaming radio, taking rapid-fire portrait mode photos of my kid — everything I can throw at it. Starting over with a new phone every week either sounds like a dream or your personal hell, depending on how Into Phones you are. For me, switching has become so routine that it’s mostly painless.

The phones listed here have powerful processors and enough RAM to keep up for years, so it’s fair to expect more than a handful of OS updates throughout the life of your phone. Four years of new OS versions and five years of security updates is a healthy benchmark for this class, and many of the phones here meet or exceed that standard.

Most phone cameras can perform well in good lighting conditions, from the flagship class down to $300 budget phones. The devices listed here offer a little something extra, like a useful telephoto lens, a great portrait mode, or impressive low-light shooting — and many include all three. Stabilization for the main camera unit to help in low light is a must in this category.

Most modern foldables carry an IP48 rating, meaning they’re built to withstand full water immersion and solid particles 1mm or bigger. Devices with an IP48 rating aren’t fully protected from dust, which remains a concern when it comes to long-term durability. However, Google’s Pixel 10 Pro Fold carries an IP68 rating, making it the first foldable to offer full water and dust resistance.

In addition to the best devices at any price, I look for phones that offer the best mix of must-have features for good prices. That might lead to a recommendation of a lower-tier model if it’s particularly feature-rich for its price or last year’s model if it’s still sold new and this year’s device doesn’t offer many upgrades.

So while they all fit in one category of folding tech, they’re suited to two very different kinds of people — someone who wants even more phone with their phone and someone who wants to be fully immersed a little less. Whichever category you fit into, you’d be wise to get the manufacturer’s extended warranty with your purchase; fixes can be expensive, and you won’t be able to walk into just any phone repair shop to get them. If you don’t opt for the warranty, you’ll want to be sure you can comfortably afford to replace your phone in the event of a sudden sand-related catastrophe. Death can come swiftly to a folding screen.

If I haven’t scared you off by this point, then you’re probably the kind of person who will have a heck of a good time with a foldable. I’ve used every phone under the sun, and folding phones are some of my favorite gadgets. Run four apps at once! Prop it up like a tiny laptop! Hold it like a camcorder when you shoot video! There are tons of possibilities, and the thrill you get when you fold your phone shut never fully wears off.

Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold on a desk.

$1799

The Good

  • Full dust resistance! On a foldable!
  • Qi2 support with built-in magnets

The Bad

  • Heavy and chunky
  • Cameras aren’t as good as the other 10 Pro phones’
  • Pricier than a regular phone

Screen: 8-inch, 2076p, 120Hz OLED inner screen; 6.4-inch, 1080p, 120Hz OLED cover screen / Processor: Google Tensor G5 / Cameras: 48-megapixel f/1.7 main with OIS; 10.8-megapixel 5x telephoto with OIS; 10.5-megapixel ultrawide; 10-megapixel selfie (cover screen); 10-megapixel inner selfie camera / Battery: 5,015mAh / Charging: 30W wired, 15W wireless (Qi2) / Weather resistance: IP68

Durability has long been the North Star of the foldable category, and the Pixel 10 Pro Fold marks a real milestone in that journey. With an IP68 rating, it’s the first foldable to offer full water and dust resistance. That means you can take the $1,799 device on a hike or to the beach without worrying that a stray grain of sand will absolutely destroy it. Add in Qi2 support with built-in magnets for accessories and wireless charging — along with Google’s more powerful Tensor G5 chip — and you have the most well-rounded foldable available.

The Pixel 10 Pro Fold isn’t without its shortcomings, though. It offers all-day battery life with minimal use of the inner display; however, if you spend most of your time using the inner screen, your battery will likely be in the red by bedtime. Also, while we love the device’s improved durability, its cameras fall short of Google’s other 10 Pro models, especially in low light. The foldable is a bit heavier and thicker than the Galaxy Z Fold 7, too, which is a fair trade for greater peace of mind.

Read our full Pixel 10 Pro Fold review.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 showing cover screenSamsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 showing cover screen

$1100

The Good

  • Samsung finally adopted the big cover screen
  • All-day battery
  • Reliable camera

The Bad

  • More susceptible to dust than your average phone
  • Still too hard to run full apps on the cover screen

Screen: 6.9-inch, 1080p, 120Hz OLED inner screen; 4.1-inch, 948p, OLED cover screen / Processor: Samsung Exynos 2500 / Cameras: 50-megapixel f/1.8 main with OIS; 12-megapixel ultrawide; 10-megapixel selfie (inner screen) / Battery: 4,300mAh / Charging: 25W wired, 15W wireless, 4.5W reverse wireless / Weather-resistance rating: IP48

The latest Galaxy Z Flip may not be as fun as the newest Razr Ultra, but it does offer a few new tricks. Samsung ditched the old file-folder cover screen in favor of a glorious, 4.1-inch edge-to-edge panel that wraps around the cameras. The extra real estate means you have more room to quickly respond to messages or perform any task that doesn’t require you to open your phone (and risk getting lost in a digital rabbit hole).

In addition to the larger cover screen, the Flip 7 offers a couple of other thoughtful updates. It’s thinner than its predecessor and features a bigger 4,300mAh battery, which is a step up from the 4,000mAh battery found in the last-gen Flip 6. The camera system remains unchanged from last year’s model, too, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The 50-megapixel main shooter still produces great images, and you get all the versatility the flip form factor has to offer, including the ability to easily take selfies using the rear camera.

Despite some welcome changes, the Flip 7 carries the same IP48 rating as last year’s model, which means long-term durability against fine dust particles remains a concern. However, Samsung offers a great warranty and repair program, along with seven years of OS and security updates. The Flip 7 isn’t perfect, but it’s the most powerful and polished version yet — just don’t drop it while lounging on the beach.

Read our full Galaxy Z Flip 7 review.
Motorola Razr Ultra on a green background showing wooden back panelMotorola Razr Ultra on a green background showing wooden back panel

$1100

The Good

  • One of the best-looking phones you can buy
  • Great battery life
  • Outer screen is useful in unexpected ways

The Bad

  • AI button is wasted real estate
  • Long-term durability is still a question mark
  • Camera processing is occasionally weird

Screen: 7-inch 1224p OLED 165Hz inner screen; 4-inch 1080p OLED 165Hz outer screen / Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite / Cameras: 50-megapixel f/1.8 main with OIS; 50-megapixel f/2.0 ultrawide; 50-megapixel f/2.0 selfie / Battery: 4,700mAh / Charging: 68W wired, 30W wireless / Weather-resistance rating: IP48

The Razr Ultra is the newest and most advanced member of Motorola’s foldable lineup. Compared to the Razr Plus, it boasts a higher-resolution inner screen, Qualcomm’s most powerful mobile processor, double the storage space, and an upgraded selfie camera. The device is also one of the best-looking phones you can buy — the gold-bronze chassis and wooden back panel lend the Ultra a real elegance. When every phone tends to look the same — even in the foldable market — the Razr Ultra stands out in a crowd, which only adds to its charm.

Beyond its appearance, the Ultra is just plain fun to use. The 4-inch outer screen covers almost the entire front of the phone, making it perfect for checking notifications, responding to messages, and taking quick actions such as hailing an Uber. The titanium hinge is also an upgrade over the stainless steel found in the Razr Plus. While the Ultra is enjoyable, it can’t overcome the gripes we’ve had with previous Motorola foldables, like inconsistent camera processing. Meanwhile, Motorola is only promising three OS upgrades and four years of security updates, which is on the shorter side considering the $1,300 retail price.

Read our full Razr Ultra (2025) review.

The best battery life in a foldable

$2099

The Good

  • It’s really, really thin
  • Excellent battery life
  • The crease is almost invisible

The Bad

  • Foldables are still fragile
  • It’s not launching in the US or Europe

Screen: 8.12-inch, 2248p, 120Hz OLED inner screen; 6.62-inch, 1140p, 120Hz OLED outer screen size/ Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Cameras: 50-megapixel f/1.9 main with OIS, 50-megapixel 3x telephoto with OIS, 8-megapixel ultrawide, 8-megapixel selfie cameras (inner and outer) / Battery: 5,600mAh / Charging: 80W wired, 50W wireless / Weather-resistance rating: IPX8/IPX9

Let’s get the bad news out of the way first: if you live in the US or Europe, you can’t buy the Oppo Find N5. That rules out, well, a lot of us. But if you live in China, Singapore, or any of the other Asian countries Oppo included in its so-called “global” release, then you’re in luck: you can pick up one of the world’s thinnest book-style folding phones, and the rest of us are all very jealous of you.

The Find N5 isn’t all about thinness, either. Its Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset is highly capable, the phone is fully water-resistant, and battery life is excellent. It utilizes silicon-carbon battery technology to accommodate a large (by foldable standards) 5,600mAh battery, which easily holds up after a long day of heavy use. What’s even more impressive is that, like the aforementioned Z Fold 7, the Find N5 is still barely thicker than a standard slab-style phone and only slightly heavier. That matters when you’re using the phone via the cover screen for long periods of time or stashing it in the side pocket of your yoga pants. When a foldable is only about as heavy and bulky as a regular phone, using the inner screen feels like getting away with something fantastic — not a benefit you have to make many other sacrifices for. Oppo delivers this in spades, and I just wish more of us could… find it.

Read our full Oppo Find N5 review.

Other foldables to consider

  • The latest Huawei Mate XTs gets an honorable mention for its sheer wow factor alone. It’s Huawei’s second trifold phone and features some minor upgrades over the original, which we found to be a great foldable that’s far too expensive. The second-gen Mate XTs is cheaper than the original at 17,999 yuan (about $2,520) and adds several new features, including stylus support, an upgraded Kirin 9020 chipset, and an improved 40-megapixel ultrawide.
  • The Motorola Razr Plus 2025 is new to the scene, replacing last year’s model. Although the two devices look identical, there are a few notable changes. The biggest difference is that the Razr Plus 2025 now features a titanium hinge, rather than stainless steel, promising better durability and a less noticeable crease when the device is open. Additionally, the Razr Plus 2025 offers IP48 dust and water resistance, whereas last year’s model featured an IPX8 rating. While we haven’t tested the newest model, it appears to be a solid alternative to the Ultra.
  • The standard Motorola Razr 2025 is a more affordable entry point into the world of foldables, starting at $699. The Razr 2025 offers improved performance, battery life, and durability — the kind of bumps we expect year after year. It boasts a smaller cover screen compared to the Razr Plus and Ultra, but still offers a spacious 6.9-inch internal display. We haven’t tested the Razr 2025 yet, but its relatively budget-friendly price is a good option for jumping into the foldable market.
  • The Pixel 9 Pro Fold is an impressive sophomore effort from Google, offering an ideal form factor that’s a joy to use. When folded, the outer screen matches the dimensions of a regular phone, and the inner screen can get nice and bright outdoors. The whole package is also light enough that it sometimes doesn’t feel like you’re holding a foldable, though it does suffer from a slightly downgraded camera system compared to its slab-style siblings. There’s also no formal dust resistance, so long-term durability remains a concern. Read our review.
  • The Galaxy Z Fold 7 is an excellent alternative to the Pixel 10 Pro Fold. The slim, lightweight foldable is just 8.9mm thick when folded shut, which is nearly as slim as standard slab-style devices. It has a spacious inner display that’s great for multitasking, and the battery can last a full day with moderate use. That being said, the Z Fold 7 has a starting price of $1,999 and doesn’t offer full dust and water resistance, making the hinge more susceptible to damage. Read our review.

Samsung has been teasing a trifold device for months, and the company says it’s still on track to launch later this year. In fact, it recently showed off a prototype version of the hardware. Instead of folding in an accordion-style like the Huawei Mate XTs, Samsung’s trifold will seemingly feature a middle portion and two sides that fold inward. Beyond that, Samsung has yet to share details, such as what the trifold will be called or how much it will cost. Considering the Z Fold 7 has a starting price of $1,999, we’re bracing ourselves for the announcement.

Update, October 28th: Adjusted pricing / availability and added the Pixel 10 Pro Fold as our top pick. Brandon Russell also contributed to this post.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#foldable #phone #buy


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