New Delhi — Scientists say Indian farmers’ eager uptake of a painkiller for their cattle in the 1990s has led to the inadvertent deaths of half of a million people and massive economic losses — not from any harm to the cattle, but from the loss of millions of vultures, scavengers that historically devoured animals’ remains before they could rot and become vectors for disease.

In early 1990s, the patent on a painkiller called diclofenac lifted, making it cheap and widely available for India’s massive agricultural sector. Farmers use it to treat a wide array of conditions in cattle. But even a small amount of the drug is fatal to vultures. Since the beginning of its widespread use in India, the domestic vulture population has dropped from a whopping 50 million to just a few thousand — and according to a study published by the American Economic Association, the impact on humans has been monumental, reflecting the vital role the scavengers play.

Vultures have been a crucial part of India’s ecosystems for centuries. According to the authors of the study, entitled “The Social Costs of Keystone Species Collapse: Evidence From The Decline of Vultures in India,” the large, homely birds are a “keystone species” — one that plays an irreplaceable role in an ecosystem. 

They’re the only scavengers that feed entirely on carcasses, and they do it extremely efficiently, quickly devouring the remains and leaving little behind to spread disease. The study authors say India’s vultures would typically eat at least 50 million animal carcasses every year, before their population was decimated.

In doing so, they prevented the dead farm animals from rotting, and the deadly bacteria and other pathogens that thrive in carcasses from being transmitted into human populations.

“In a country like India with prohibitions on eating beef, most cattle end up turning into carcasses,” Anant Sudarshan, an associate professor of economics at the University of Warwick in England, who co-authored the study, told CBS News. “Vultures provide an incredible disposal service for free. … A group of vultures takes about 45 minutes to turn a cow carcass into bone.”

The vultures’ keen appetite also helped keep the populations of competing scavengers in check, such as feral dogs and rats, which can transmit rabies and a host of other diseases.

In 1994, farmers began giving diclofenac to their cattle and other livestock. The drug causes kidney failure and death in vultures that feed on the carcasses of animals given the painkiller, and the population of the birds shrank from 50 million to just 20,000 over the course of the ensuing decade alone.

Without the vultures around to do the job, farmers started disposing their dead livestock in local bodies of water, which caused water pollution — and another way for pathogens to reach humans.

Sudarshan and study co-author Eyal Frank, an environmental economist at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, examined the impact of the drastically reduced vulture population on human health by mapping vulture habitats with health data from more than 600 districts in India. They said their research shows 100,000 human deaths every year between 2000 and 2005 could be linked with the decreased vulture populations. 

It also shows economic losses they estimated at $69 billion per year, largely associated with premature human deaths due to the collapse of the scavenger population.

These deaths were caused, according to their research, by the spread of diseases that a thriving vulture population would have mitigated. Stray dog populations, and with them, the spread of rabies, also increased during the timeframe, as did the amount of bacteria measured in many local water sources.

“India is now the largest center of rabies in the world, as the feral dog population has grown dramatically,” Sudarshan told CBS News.

Without a major vulture rebound, the study authors said the spread of disease and resulting deaths will only continue in the coming years, as will the costs associated with health care.

India did ban diclofenac for veterinary use in 2006, but Sudarshan said the ban needs to be enforced much more effectively. He and Eyal have called for more conservation funding to boost vulture populations, but they’ve warned that even if the Indian government does mount a major effort, it will take at least a decade for the species to bounce back to the extent required because they’re “slow reproducers.”

As an alternative to bringing the vultures back, Sudarshan said India could build a network of incinerators around the country, but the estimated cost of that is about $1 billion per year, and they would use a huge amount of energy and create considerable air pollution, which is already a major problem for India. 

“So, it makes more sense to bring back the natural way of dealing with the millions of animal carcasses that India produces each year,” he said.

And he said that work must start urgently, as the “vultures began dying in the 1990s. India has not done anything three decades on.”

The government does spend about $3 million per year to save India’s native tigers. Sudarshan said while vultures may be far less of a tourist attraction, there’s a broader question about “the basis of our conservation policy.”

“Our paper shows that the cost of losing them [vultures] is about $69 billion a year, which is far higher than any benefits the tiger” brings, he said, adding: “We need to think from a cost effectiveness point of view and growth view, how should we pick species to conserve?”

“Understanding the role vultures play in human health underscores the importance of protecting wildlife – and not just the cute and cuddly,” said his co-author, Frank. “They all have a job to do in our ecosystems that impacts our lives.”

Apple has recently announced its new flagship smartphones, including the iPhone 16 Pro Max, the largest one. In this article, we’ll compare it to the best Samsung has to offer, the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max. These two devices are quite different when it comes to design, but that’s not where the similarities end, not at all, quite the contrary, actually. There is plenty to talk about here.

As we usually do, we will first list the specifications of both smartphones and will then move to compare them across a number of other categories. We will compare their designs, displays, performance, battery life, cameras, and audio output. There are quite a few differences to talk about here, as the two companies have completely different approaches. Let’s get down to it, shall we?

Specs

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max, respectively

– Screen size:
6.9-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2X (flat, adaptive 120Hz, HDR10+, 2,600 nits max brightness)
6.9-inch LTPO Super Retina XDR OLED ( flat, 120Hz, HDR, 2,000 nits)
– Display resolution:
3120 x 1440
2868 x 1320
– SoC:
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 for Galaxy (4nm)
Apple A18 Pro (3nm)
– RAM:
12GB (LPDDR5X)
16GB (LPDDR5X)
– Storage:
256GB/512GB/1TB (UFS 4.0)
128GB/256GB/512GB/1TB (UFS 3.1)
– Rear cameras:
200MP (wide, f/1.7 aperture, OIS, multi-directional PDAF, 0.6um pixel size), 12MP (ultrawide, 120-degree FoV, f/2.2 aperture, Dual Pixel PDAF 1.4um pixel size), 10MP (telephoto, f/2.4 aperture, OIS, Dual Pixel PDAF, 1.12um pixel size, 3x optical zoom), 50MP (periscope telephoto, OIS, PDAF, 5x optical zoom)
48MP (wide, f/1.8 aperture, 1/1.28-inch sensor, 1.22um pixel size, sensor-shift OIS), 48MP (ultrawide, f/2.2 aperture, 0.7um pixel size, PDAF), 12MP (periscope telephoto, f/2.8 aperture, 1/3.06-inch sensor, 1.12um pixel size, 3D sensor-shift OIS, 5x optical zoom).
– Front cameras:
12MP (wide, f/2.2 aperture, Dual Pixel PDAF, 22mm lens)
12MP (f/1.9 aperture, PDAF, 1/3.6-inch sensor size, OIS)
– Battery:
5,000mAh
Not confirmed yet
– Charging:
45W wired, 15W wireless, 4.5W reverse wireless (charger not included)
38W wired & 25W MagSafe & Qi2 wireless, 7.5W Qi wireless, 5W reverse wired
– Dimensions:
162.3 x 79 x 8.6mm
163 x 77.6 x 8.3 mm
– Weight:
232/233 grams
227 grams
– Connectivity:
5G, LTE, NFC, Wi-Fi, USB Type-C, Bluetooth 5.3
– Security:
Ultrasonic in-display fingerprint scanner & facial scanning
Face ID (3D facial scanning)
– OS:
Android 14 with One UI 6.1
iOS 18
– Price:
$1,299+
$1,199+
– Buy:
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra (Best Buy)
Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: Design

The moment you lay your eyes on the two phones you’ll realize how different they are. The Galaxy S24 Ultra has a flat top and bottom sides, but its left and right sides are curved. All sides of the iPhone 16 Pro Max are flat, though they are slightly rounded toward the edges. Apple did that so that the phone is more comfortable to hold. Both phones do include flat displays with cutouts on them. The Galaxy S24 Ultra has a little hole at the top of the display, while the iPhone 16 Pro Max has a rather large pill-shaped cutout.

The bezels around their displays are very thin, and uniform. All the physical buttons sit on the right-hand side of the Galaxy S24 Ultra. The iPhone 16 Pro Max has a power/lock key there and a Camera Control button. On the left, you’ll find the volume up and down buttons, and the Action Button. The two devices have considerably different camera setups on the back. Each of the Galaxy S24 Ultra’s four cameras protrudes directly from the back side. There is no dedicated camera island. The exact opposite is true for the iPhone 16 Pro Max. Its camera island sits in the top-left corner with three cameras.

Both of these phones are made out of titanium and glass. They have a titanium frame. They are both also IP68 certified for water and dust resistance. Corning’s Gorilla Armor sits on the back of Samsung’s handset. Apple’s device has a “Corning-made glass” on the back. The two phones are almost the same in terms of height, while the Galaxy S24 Ultra is slightly wider. They are almost identical in terms of thickness. Both phones are quite slippery, and the Galaxy S24 Ultra is 5 grams heavier.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: Display

The Galaxy S24 Ultra feautres a 6.8-inch QHD+ 3120 x 1440 Dynamic LTPO AMOLED 2X display. That panel has an adaptive refresh rate of up to 120Hz. It also offers support for HDR10+ content, and its peak brightness is at 2,600 nits. The screen-to-body ratio is around 88%, while the display aspect ratio is 19.5:9. The Gorilla Armor from Corning sits on top of the display in order to protect it.

The iPhone 16 Pro Max, on the flip side, has a 6.9-inch LTPO Super Retina XDR OLED display. That display has an adaptive refresh rate of up to 120Hz. HDR10 is supported, as is Dolby Vision. The peak brightness here is 2,000 nits. The screen-to-body ratio on the iPhone 16 Pro Max is around 91%. The display aspect ratio is 19.5:9. This display is protected by the Ceramic Shield glass.

Both of these panels are great. They are vivid, bright, and have great viewing angles. The blacks are deep, and the touch response is good. Neither phone has high-frequency PWM dimming, though. The Galaxy S24 Ultra does technically get brighter, but the difference is not that big, not even in direct sunlight. What the Galaxy S24 Ultra does have an advantage with is… glare. The Gorilla Armor on top of the display is unbelievable in that regard.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: Performance

The Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 for Galaxy fuels the Galaxy S24 Ultra. That is a 4nm chip and Qualcomm’s best one at the time of writing this. The phone is also equipped with 12GB of LPDDR5X RAM and UFS 4.0 flash storage. The iPhone 16 Pro Max is fueled by the Apple A18 Pro processor. That is a 3nm chip, by the way. The phone is also equipped with 8GB of RAM and NVMe flash storage. Neither phone offers expandable storage, by the way.

With that being said, both phones do offer great performance. Our iPhone 16 Pro (Max) review is not ready yet, but plenty of impressions are already there. In any case, both devices are very fluid in terms of day-to-day use. They can jump between apps without a problem, and getting them to slow down is a chore. They do great regardless of what you’re doing, even when it comes to a bit more advanced things such as video processing.

What about gaming, though? Well, they’re great in that regard too. Non-demanding games are, of course, not a problem, but the same goes for truly demanding titles too. Each of these two smartphones can run basically anything you can think of, and do it really well. Titles like Genshin Impact are not a problem at all. They will get warm, but not too much, and that won’t affect the gaming performance at all.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: Battery

There is a 5,000mAh battery included inside the Galaxy S24 Ultra. Apple still didn’t confirm what battery it used in the iPhone 16 Pro Max, though. It is tipped to be a 4,676mAh unit, but we’re still not 100% sure. Apple’s handsets usually have smaller batteries compared to their Android counterparts, due to the way iOS operates, but that doesn’t mean they have inferior battery life. In fact, both of these smartphones are outstanding in that regard.

We were in awe of the Galaxy S24 Ultra’s battery life when we first reviewed it. The iPhone 16 Pro Max is showing a similar promise, actually. Getting to over 7-8 hours of screen-on-time is a possibility on both phones, though your mileage may vary, of course. That will depend on a number of factors. The point is, we were unable to drain the battery life of either phone in a day. We could have done that with constant gaming, of course, but with general heavy use, no… that didn’t happen.

What about charging? Well, the Galaxy S24 Ultra supports 45W wired, 15W wireless, and 4.5W reverse wireless charging. The iPhone 16 Pro Max, on the other hand, supports 45W wired, 25W MagSafe wireless, 15W Qi2 wireless, 7.5W Qi wireless, and 5W reverse wired charging. Do note that neither smartphone comes with a charger in the retail box, however. All you’ll get is a cable.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: Cameras

The Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra comes with four cameras on the back, while Apple’s handset has three rear cameras. The Galaxy S24 Ultra includes a 200-megapixel main camera, a 12-megapixel ultrawide unit (120-degree FoV), a 10-megapixel telephoto unit (3x optical zoom), and a 50-megapixel periscope telephoto camera (5x optical zoom). The iPhone 16 Pro Max, on the other hand, has a 48-megapixel main camera, a 48-megapixel ultrawide unit, and a 12-megapixel periscope telephoto camera (5x optical zoom).

The main camera sensors on the two phones are similar in terms of size. Both devices do a really good job with photos, though the results are different. Samsung’s images still look more processed, although Apple has been heading more and more in that direction. Both phones like brightening up the shadows during the day, even though the Galaxy S24 Ultra’s images do end up looking a bit more contrasty. The iPhone 16 Pro Max was more reliable for us in terms of balanced photos, for what it’s worth, but the Galaxy S24 Ultra was not far off.

Both ultrawide cameras do a good job, and keep a similar color profile to the main shooters. The results are notably different, though, as are with the main cameras. Something similar can be said for the telephoto cameras. This was a tossup between the two setups, as it all depended on what distance we were capturing. At times we preferred shots from the iPhone, but it was mostly from Samsung. Both devices also do a good job in low light and love to brighten up scenes, though Samsung more than Apple. That goes for all three cameras, by the way. The iPhone 16 Pro Max easily wins the video comparison.

Audio

Both of these smartphones include stereo speakers, and they’re really good on both ends. They’re loud enough, and the sound output is detailed enough. We did not notice noticeable distortion or anything like that.

There is no audio jack on either phone, but you can use their Type-C ports to connect your wired headphones. Alternatively, Bluetooth 5.3 is on offer for wireless audio connections… on both smartphones.

Subscribe to the Innovation Insider Newsletter Catch up on the latest tech innovations that are changing the world, including IoT, 5G, the latest about phones, security, smart cities, AI, robotics, and more. Delivered Tuesdays and Fridays Email Address By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. …

The mummy of an ancient Egyptian woman with her mouth wide open in what looks like an anguished shriek may have died “screaming from agony,” researchers say.

The unnamed woman mummy, discovered in a 1935 archeological expedition in Deir el-Bahari near Luxor, was kept in The Cairo Egyptian Museum and referred to as “Screaming Woman Mummy of the store of Kasr al Ainy.”

In an article in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, scientists said they used CT scans and other testing to examine whether the mummy had any pathological abnormalities and assess potential causes of death.

They found that the woman, who was around 48 years old at the time she died, had lost some teeth and lived with mild arthritis of the spine. Her body was embalmed about 3,500 years ago with high quality ingredients.

Ancient Egyptians mummified bodies because they believed preserving them after death secured a worthy existence in the afterlife. Usually, internal organs would be removed during the mummification process, but that did not take place with the “Screaming Woman.”

“In ancient Egypt, the embalmers took care of the dead body so it would look beautiful for the afterlife. That’s why they were keen to close the mouth of the dead by tying the jaw to the head to prevent the normal postmortem jaw drop,” lead researcher in the study, Cairo University radiology professor Sahar Saleem, told the Reuters news agency.

But this had not happened in the case of the “Screaming Woman.”

“This opened the way to other explanations of the widely opened mouth — that the woman died screaming from agony or pain and that the muscles of the face contracted to preserve this appearance at the time of death due to cadaveric spasm,” Saleem told Reuters, adding that, due to all of the unknowns around her history, the cause of her expression can’t be established with certainty.

Saleem told Reuters that cadaveric spasm is a poorly understood condition, where contracted muscles become rigid immediately after death.

New capabilities

Just as adding support for Flink provided Confluent users with more choice as they build their streaming data infrastructure, adding support for the Table API — which is now in open preview — similarly adds more choice to the Confluent platform while also opening it to a new set of potential users.

When Confluent first provided customers with Flink as an option, it did so with a SQL API that enabled developers to build data streams using SQL code. However, not all developers know SQL. And even among those who do know SQL, the programming language may not be their preferred coding format.

Advertisement

The Table API, like the SQL API, is a tool that enables Flink users to develop pipelines by writing code. But rather than SQL, the Table API enables developers to use Java and Python.

Choice is important as developers create environments for data management and analytics. It not only enables enterprises to avoid vendor lock-in but also lets them use the tools that best fit their needs for a given task or that users know best and prefer. Therefore, Confluent’s addition of support for the Table API is a logical step for the vendor following its initial support for Flink, according to David Menninger, an analyst at ISG’s Ventana Research.

It will be significant to developers that would prefer to write code rather than SQL statements. In some cases, developers may not be very well versed in SQL. In some cases, it may just be a preference.

“It will be significant to developers that would prefer to write code rather than SQL statements,” he said. “In some cases, developers may not be very well versed in SQL. In some cases, it may just be a preference.”

Beyond support for the Table API, Confluent’s addition of new security features is important, according to Menninger.

Advertisement

Specifically, Confluent’s platform now offers private networking support for Flink so users of private networks rather than public clouds can take advantage of Flink’s capabilities. In addition, the platform now includes client-side field level encryption, which enables customers to encrypt fields within data streams to ensure security and regulatory compliance.

Data volume is growing at an exponential rate. So is the complexity of data. To ensure security so sensitive information remains private, many organizations have hybrid data storage environments, with their less-regulated data stored in public clouds such as AWS and Azure and their more regulated data, such as that with personally identifiable information, kept on premises or in private clouds.

By enabling customers to use Flink in private networks, Confluent is supporting potential customers that may not have been able to use its platform in the past due to security concerns to now use its streaming data capabilities.

Specific features of Confluent’s private networking support for Flink, which is generally available on AWS for Confluent Enterprise users, include:

Advertisement

• Safeguards for in-transit data, including a private network to provide secure connections between private clouds and Flink.
• Simple configuration that enables users without extensive networking expertise to set up private connections between their private data storage environments and Flink.
• Flexible data stream processing of Kafka clusters within the secure environment so that private cloud users can benefit from the same speed and efficiency as other Confluent users.

“It may not be very sexy, but new security features including private networking and client-side field-level encryption will be welcomed additions,” Menninger said. “Enterprises have a heightened focus on governance, compliance and security. The lack of these capabilities may, in fact, have prevented certain organizations from using Flink previously.”

Confluent’s impetus for including support for the Table API and the new security features — along with an extension for the Visual Studio Code development platform — came from a combination of customer interactions and observation of market trends, according to Jean-Sébastien Brunner, Confluent’s director of product management.

Confluent maintains a feedback loop with its users and takes information gathered from that feedback into account when deciding what to add in any given platform update, he said.

In addition, the vendor pays close attention to industry trends to make sure its tools are consistent with those being offered by competing platforms such as Cloudera, Aiven and streaming data tools from tech giants such as AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft.

Finally, with its roots in the open source community, a focal point for Confluent is making sure that technologies such as Kafka and Flink are accessible and easy to use.

Advertisement

“We look at several signals,” he said.

While Confluent’s platform update aims to meet customer needs and respond to industry trends, the vendor’s acquisition of WarpStream was designed to expand Confluent’s reach within an enterprise’s data stack by adding new applications for its platform, according to Kreps, Confluent’s CEO.

Confluent, which was founded in 2014, provides certain capabilities and is a good fit for certain companies. WarpStream provides different capabilities such as a bring-your-own-cloud (BYOC) architecture that enables users to deploy the streaming data platform in their own clouds rather than a vendor’s.

In a sense, BYOC is similar to Confluent’s private networking support for Flink. However, as a native architecture, it is a foundation rather than an add-on.

Advertisement

“Our goal is to make data streaming the central nervous system of every company,” Kreps said. “To do that we need to make it something that is a great fit for a vast array of use cases and companies. The big thing they did that got our attention was their next-generation approach to BYOC architectures.”

Once integrated, WarpStream’s BYOC capabilities should help Confluent accomplish its aim of providing customers with more deployment options, according to Menninger.

He noted that some vendors offer a managed cloud service or a self-managed option that can be run in the cloud. Other vendors that are more mature offer both. Both options have benefits and drawbacks. For example, managed cloud versions reduce management burdens but can be expensive. Self-managed versions can be less expensive but require more labor.

WarpStream provides a third choice.

Advertisement

“WarpStream offers an option in between,” Menninger said. “Enterprises can offload some of the management and administrative responsibilities, but not all of them.”