“The rise of AI is the next industrial revolution,” Gloria Caulfield, a real estate executive, told recent graduates of arts, humanities, and communication at the University of Central Florida. The response? A chorus of boos. Caulfield turned to the organizers: “What happened?” she asked. She looked back at the young people in the audience: “Ok, I’ve struck a chord, may I finish?” And she continued: “Only a few years ago, AI wasn’t a factor in our lives,” she added. And then they applauded, and Caulfield smiled with relief. The video of her bewilderment went viral.

The booing of AI in Florida wasn’t the only such incident at American universities over the weekend. Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, was presiding over the commencement ceremony at the University of Arizona before thousands of students. Schmidt uttered phrases that young people have heard a thousand times before: “The question isn’t whether AI will shape the world. It will. The question is whether you will help shape AI,” he said. He continued: “AI will affect everything, whichever path you choose.” And he was booed.

The reasons for the jeers will be varied: from fear of an uncertain future to weariness with the evangelical rhetoric surrounding AI. Just recently, at the University of Central Florida, there was controversy over a class called “Art of AI” for art students. One student argued that he pays tuition to learn skills, not to use a generative AI that would prevent him from then using those skills.

This trend is reflected in recent polls. Over the past year, according to a Gallup survey published in April in the U.S., Generation Z’s sentiment toward AI has become more negative. The percentage of young people enthusiastic about AI has fallen 14 points to 22%, while those angry about it have risen nine points to 31%. Anxiety about AI remains stable at 42%.

In a Pew Research global survey on AI, the generation most consistently concerned about the technology is those aged over 50. Those least concerned are the youngest, aged between 18 and 34. This pattern holds true, with a significant percentage difference of more than 24 points between younger and older generations in countries like Greece, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, and Japan. The United States, however, is the country where this difference is smallest: young people are almost as concerned as older generations about the emergence of AI in everyday life.

In another commencement address, music industry executive Scott Borchetta also had to defend himself against some heckling during his speech at Middle Tennessee State University: “This industry will change. It’s changed more in the last 10 years than in the 50 years prior. Streaming rewrote the economics. Social media rewrote the discovery model. AI is rewriting production while we sit here,” he said, eliciting some boos. Borchetta then went off-script: “I know, accept it. Like I said, it’s a tool. Either you can hear me now or you can pay me later. Do something. The things you learned here in your first year may already be obsolete.”

In the case of Schmidt, the booing was already anticipated. In 2025, a former lover accused him of rape, and he also appears in the Epstein files. University organizations had distributed leaflets encouraging the booing. To make matters worse, at their historic rival, Arizona State University, the graduation sponsor was actor Harrison Ford, who was being awarded an honorary doctorate for his environmental activism.

A university spokesperson told a local media outlet that Schmidt’s invitation was extended due to “recognition of his extraordinary leadership and global contributions” and because “he continues to drive research and discovery through important philanthropic and scientific initiatives, including collaborations that support key projects at the University of Arizona.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

There was a time when researchers doubted that Neanderthals liked the beach. There was no trace of them in marine environments. It was suggested then that these were more complex ecosystems, requiring skills that only Homo sapiens, modern humans, possessed. Several studies have dismantled this ethnocentrism: Homo neanderthalensis had been feeding from the sea for many millennia before Homo sapiens arrived in Europe. Now, a new study published in PNAS shows that, around 115,000 years ago, in a Mediterranean cave, they used strategies that Homo sapiens would employ much later, such as gathering mollusks in the colder months, when the risk of contamination was minimal and their flavor at its peak.

“The Los Aviones cave was occupied year-round; we don’t know if permanently or not, but most likely not,” says Asier García-Escárzaga, a researcher at the University of Burgos and lead author of the study. The cave, near Cartagena (Murcia), now threatened by rising sea levels, was a refuge for Neanderthals for millennia. “There is exploitation throughout the year, but most of the mollusks, most of the shells, are collected during the colder months, that is, from late autumn, around November, until early spring, around April,” García-Escárzaga adds.

The dating of the stratum from which dozens of remains of two mollusk species were recovered indicates that they were collected approximately 115,000 years ago. The exact year cannot be determined, but the approximate month can be. Thanks to the analysis of oxygen present in the calcium carbonate that forms the shells, researchers were able to determine that, although harvested year-round, around 80% of the Mediterranean snails (Phorcus turbinatus) were consumed between November and April, and only 5% during the summer months. The percentage is similar for the ferruginous limpet (Patella ferruginea), the other mollusk included in this study.

“What’s relevant here is that this seasonal pattern is identical to the one we have for Homo sapiens populations in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, in the Mediterranean basin and the European Atlantic, 100,000 years later,” García-Escárzaga points out. For the authors, once the ornamental use of shells is ruled out (“There are no perforations or ochre remains, nor did they use these species,” the researcher adds), the key is that Neanderthals gathered these food resources according to the season.

Looking back, it seems logical that harvesting took place during the colder months. Today, in the southern mid-latitudes, this pattern is still followed for many mollusk species and most hard-shelled shellfish. Summer, with the rise in temperatures, brings algal blooms, such as the dreaded red tide, which makes harvesting mussels, for example, impossible. In the warmer months, in addition to the risk of algal or bacterial contamination, there’s the issue of preservation. But there’s another factor: they taste better in winter.

“The reproductive cycle of Phorcus turbinatus may have had significant implications for its seasonal exploitation,” notes Arnaldo Marín, a marine biologist at the University of Murcia and co-author of the study. The maturity of the Mediterranean snail’s gonads reaches its peak during the colder months, “a time when the digestive gland-gonad complex exhibits high development and a high accumulation of energy reserves, especially lipids and proteins associated with gamete production,” Marín adds. Conversely, at the end of spring, after spawning, the individuals experience a marked reduction in gonadal content, coinciding with the warmer months, leaving the reproductive system practically empty and decreasing the animal’s nutritional value. “These seasonal variations suggest that the harvesting of P. turbinatus by Neanderthals may have been concentrated primarily in the periods prior to spawning, when energy and nutritional yields were at their highest,” he concludes.

There is no direct evidence that Neanderthals ate mollusks in the colder months because they tasted better, but there is no evidence to the contrary either. And what is known points to the former. In Mediterranean snails, their high fat content and flavor are closely linked to the reproductive cycle. “This pattern is also known in other marine mollusks, such as oysters, mussels, and sea urchins, where they are traditionally considered better before the breeding season,” the biologist notes. In fact, many traditional fishing practices and shellfish harvesting seasons coincide with these periods of peak physiological condition.

According to Miguel Cortés, professor of prehistory at the University of Seville, there is an alternative hypothesis to explain seasonal consumption: “In these latitudes, such as the region of the Los Aviones cave, Neanderthals could have gone up into the mountains in summer and, in winter, gone to the coast to avoid the cold and ate whatever was available,” he suggests. 115,000 years ago, the climate was similar to today’s, although the beginning of the Würm glaciation, the last Ice Age, was already approaching.

Cortés was one of the authors of a paper that caused a stir among scholars of human evolution. In 2011, they published a study on mollusks collected in a cave on the Málaga coast. They were over 150,000 years old. This implies that Neanderthals were consuming marine resources in Europe at least at the same time that modern humans were doing so in southern Africa. “It was very difficult for us to get it published. The [paleoanthropological] community, dominated by Anglo-Saxons, didn’t buy it,” Cortés recalls. In their then-dominant thesis on human origins, “the consumption of seafood could have helped the development of the modern human brain and its evolution,” he adds. And the findings in several caves over the last two decades, all on the Iberian Peninsula, of Neanderthals collecting shellfish and mollusks have dismantled their narrative.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

The political crisis in the Mexican state of Sinaloa has begun to shift the landscape within the ruling party, Morena. The accusations made by U.S. authorities against Rubén Rocha Moya, the governor of Sinaloa who has been granted a temporary leave of absence, and nine current and former officials in his inner circle, allegedly linked to the Sinaloa Cartel, have set off alarm bells within the ruling party and prompted a quiet but profound shift in its political strategy. The directive is no longer to close ranks, but rather to stand firm in defense of sovereignty as a rhetorical device to navigate the controversy that has damaged the credibility of the ruling party and its moral message of not lying, not stealing, and not betraying, a message inherited from Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

At the center of the storm are several key figures. Senator Enrique Inzunza, former secretary of government and a close confidant of Rocha Moya; former secretary of security Gerardo Mérida; and former secretary of finance Enrique Díaz, the latter two currently in U.S. custody. Adding to the intrigue is the freezing of Rocha’s accounts and those of the other individuals allegedly implicated in the indictment filed by New York prosecutors. The Financial Intelligence Unit of the Ministry of Finance carried out the operation, which was confirmed this Monday by President Claudia Sheinbaum, who clarified that it was a preventative measure. These events have proven a catalyst, increasing the pressure on the Morena leadership. Within Morena circles, there is private admission that the case has become a threat to Sheinbaum’s project and to the party itself.

The fear lies not only in the media fallout, but also in the possibility that the Sinaloa case will become an international narrative about alleged links between the ruling party and organized crime. This comes just as the Sheinbaum administration is trying to build political stability and legitimacy in the eyes of Washington. Added to this, Morena faces the 2027 elections, in which hundreds of positions will be up for grabs, including the governorship of Sinaloa. The crisis has, for now, left the party without one of its candidates in the state, Senator Inzunza, who has seen the door to the nomination closed to him.

The discourse has shifted in recent days. Where there was once a defensive tone, arguing that there was no evidence, a more calculated stance now prevails. “We will respect the outcome of the Attorney General’s investigation [against Rocha Moya] and act accordingly without covering for anyone,” said Morena leader Ariadna Montiel on Monday when questioned about the decision to freeze the accounts of the governor on leave.

The message conveyed at various levels within Morena and the federal government, according to sources consulted by this newspaper, is: do not defend anyone personally, avoid direct confrontations with the United States, and focus the discourse on three main points: the defense of sovereignty, rejection of interventionism, and the demand that “whoever needs to be investigated” be investigated.

The change can even be detected in Sheinbaum’s tone. On Monday the president avoided mentioning Rocha Moya at all costs, even when confirming that his bank accounts had been frozen. A statement from the Finance Ministry also omitted him and referred to the accused as “politically exposed persons from Sinaloa.”

The president has sought to downplay the idea that the case politically compromises Morena. However, those within the ruling party know that the problem won’t disappear with mere rhetoric. Revelations about the arrest or extradition of former Sinaloa officials in the U.S. have tightened the net around the governor. Morena’s main concern is that the U.S. investigations will extend to more active political figures and trigger a domino effect on other regional leaders.

In this context, Rocha Moya is beginning to run out of political room to maneuver. Federal legislators have been advised not to engage in debates about the Sinaloa governor’s innocence or guilt. Within the party, there is a growing perception that the governor could end up isolated from Morena if pressure from Washington escalates.

This retreat, however, does not signify an open break. Morena is trying to walk a fine line. On the one hand, it seeks to avoid any appearance of cover-up; on the other, it also does not want to unconditionally validate the investigations by the Donald Trump administration or fuel the narrative of subservience to Washington. Hence the emphasis on defending sovereignty and non-intervention.

On another front, Morena is desperately trying to shift the political spotlight to Chihuahua. First, with an offensive to push for impeachment proceedings against National Action Party (PAN) Governor Maru Campos over the case of the two CIA agents killed in an operation in which they allegedly participated irregularly. And now, with a barrage of accusations against the state government for the alleged misuse of public funds to block roads and plant PAN propaganda on government buildings. All of this is happening against the backdrop of the march against the governor led over the weekend by Montiel and Andrés Manuel López Beltrán.

Within the party, the idea has taken hold that the priority is surviving the crisis with minimal collateral damage. As the legal and political net tightens around Rocha Moya’s group, Morena is beginning to explore an emergency solution: allowing the investigations to run their course and accepting the results, whatever they may be, thus reducing costs for the federal government and preventing the Sinaloa case from dominating the political and electoral landscape. The goal is to prevent the perception that organized crime has infiltrated the heart of Morena from taking hold.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition