Yellowstone National Park visitors were sent running and screaming Tuesday when a hydrothermal explosion spewed boiling hot water and rocks into the air. No one was injured, but it has left some wondering: How does this happen and why wasn’t there any warning? 

The Weather Channel’s Stephanie Abrams said explosions like this are caused by underground channels of hot water, which also create Yellowstone’s iconic geysers and hot springs. 

“When the pressure rapidly drops in a localized spot, it actually forces the hot water to quickly turn to steam, triggering a hydrothermal explosion since gas takes up more space than liquid,” Abrams said Wednesday on “CBS Mornings.” “And this explosion can rupture the surface, sending mud and debris thousands of feet up and more than half a mile out in the most extreme cases.” 

Tuesday’s explosion was not that big, Abrams said, “but a massive amount of rocks and dirt buried the Biscuit Basin,” where the explosion occurred.   

A nearby boardwalk was left with a broken fence and was covered in debris. Nearby trees were also killed, with the U.S. Geological Survey saying the plants “can’t stand thermal activity.” 

“Because areas heat up and cool down over time, trees will sometimes die out when an area heats up, regrow as it cools down, but then die again when it heats up,” the agency said on X.

The USGS said it considers this explosion small, and that similar explosions happen in the national park “perhaps a couple times a year.” Often, though, they happen in the backcountry and aren’t noticed.

“It was small compared to what Yellowstone is capable of,” USGS Volcanoes said on X. “That’s not to say it was not dramatic or very hazardous — obviously it was. But the big ones leave craters hundreds of feet across.”

The agency also said that “hydrothermal explosions, “being episodes of water suddenly flashing to steam, are notoriously hard to predict” and “may not give warning signs at all.” It likened the eruptions to a pressure cooker.

While Yellowstone sits on a dormant volcano, officials said the explosion was not related to volcanic activity. 

“This was an isolated incident in the shallow hot-water system beneath Biscuit Basin,” the USGS said. “It was not triggered by any volcanic activity.” 

SpaceX has just performed a static fire of the six engines on its Starship spacecraft as it awaits permission from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the fifth test flight of the world’s most powerful rocket.

The Elon Musk-led spaceflight company shared footage and an image of the test fire on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday. It shows the engines firing up while the vehicle remained on the ground.

Six engine static fire of Flight 6 Starship pic.twitter.com/fzJz9BWBn6

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 19, 2024

For flights, the Starship spacecraft is carried to orbit by the first-stage Super Heavy booster, which pumps out 17 million pounds of thrust at launch, making it the most powerful rocket ever built.

The Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft — collectively known as the Starship — have launched four times to date, with the performance of each test flight showing improvements over the previous one.

The first one, for example, exploded shortly after lift off from SpaceX’s Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas, in April last year, while the second effort, which took place seven months later, achieved stage separation before an explosion occurred — an incident that was captured in dramatic footage. The third and fourth flights lasted much longer and achieved many of the mission objectives, including getting the Starship spacecraft to orbit.

The fifth test flight isn’t likely to take place until November at the earliest, according to a recent report. It will involve the first attempt to use giant mechanical arms to “catch” the Super Heavy booster as it returns to the launch area. SpaceX recently expressed extreme disappointment at the time that it’s taking the FAA to complete an investigation that will pave the way for the fifth Starship test, and has said that it’ll be ready to launch the vehicle within days of getting permission from the FAA.

Once testing is complete, NASA wants to use the Starship, along with its own Space Launch System rocket, to launch crew and cargo to the moon and quite possibly for destinations much further into space such as Mars. NASA is already planning to use a modified version of the Starship spacecraft to land the first astronauts in five decades on the lunar surface in the Artemis III mission, currently set for 2026.

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.