Temporary local copies can be shared with Nintendo through manual user reporting.

Great star corals in the grip of disease have been saved with probiotics — beneficial bacteria that attack or displace invading pathogens or possibly trigger immune responses to them. What’s causing this deadly disease remains unidentified. But researchers at the Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, Fla., were able to successfully halt progression of the disease’s symptoms, the team reports June 5 in Frontiers in Marine Science. The condition is called stony coral tissue loss disease and is characterized by white lesions that lead to the loss of polyps — tiny soft-bodied organisms similar to sea anemones — blanketing coral. Eventually, nothing but the white coral skeleton is left behind. The disease emerged in Florida in 2014 and has spread rampantly throughout the Florida Keys and the Caribbean. A great star coral (M. cavernosa) colony is infected with stony coral tissue loss disease on the coral reef in Fort Lauderdale. The lesion, where the white band of tissue occurs, typically moves across the coral, killing coral tissue along the way. Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian Researchers suspect that the disease is bacterial in nature. Antibiotic treatments can offer a quick fix, but these drugs do not prevent reinfection and carry the risk of the mysterious pathogen building resistance against them. So, in late 2020, the Smithsonian group tried for a more sustainable solution, giving probiotics to 30 infected great star coral colonies. The helpful microbes came from corals tested in the lab that showed resistance to the disease. “We noticed that one of the coral fragments would not get infected … so one of the first things we did was try to culture the microbes that are on this coral,” says microbiologist Blake Ushijima, who developed the probiotic used in the team’s experiment. “These microbes produce antibacterial compounds … and one had a high level of activity against bacteria from diseased corals,” acting as a “pro” biotic, by somehow neutralizing pathogens. The identified microbe, a bacterium called McH1-7, became the active ingredient in a paste delivered by divers to several infected colonies. They covered these colonies with plastic bags to immerse them in the probiotic solution, injecting the paste into the bags using a syringe. They also applied the paste directly to other colonies, slathering lesions caused by the disease. A probiotic paste of McH1-7 is applied to the disease lesion of a great star coral (M. cavernosa) colony infected with stony coral tissue loss disease. The paste was then smoothed flat with a gloved hand so that all apparently infected tissue was covered by the lesion-specific treatment.Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian For two and a half years, the team monitored the corals’ health. The probiotics slowed or stopped the disease from spreading in all eight colonies treated inside bags. On average, the disease’s ugly advance was held to only 7 percent of tissue, compared with an aggressive 30 percent on untreated colonies. The paste put directly on the coral had no beneficial effect. The results are encouraging, but coauthor Valerie Paul cautions against declaring the probiotic a cure. She doubts the practicality of swimming around with heavily weighted plastic bags and putting them on corals. And, she points out, the study was limited to one species of coral, when the disease plagues over 30. Sponsor Message Still, Ushijima considers the study a proof of concept. “The idea of coral probiotics has been thrown around for decades, but no one has directly shown their effects on disease in the wild,” he says. “I think it’s very exciting because it’s actually opening the door to a new field.”

Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Probiotics are everywhere, claiming to help us poop, restore gut health, and more. They can also be used to help threatened coral reefs. A bacterial probiotic has helped slow the spread of stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) in wild corals in Florida that were already infected with the disease. The findings are detailed in a study published June 5 in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science and show that applying this new probiotic treatment across coral colines helped prevent further tissue loss. What is stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD)? SCTLD first emerged in Florida in 2014. In the 11 years since, it has rapidly spread throughout the Caribbean. This mysterious ailment has been confirmed in at least 20 other countries and territories. Other coral pathogens typically target specific species. SCTLD infects more than 30 different species of stony corals, including pillar corals and brain corals. The disease causes the soft tissue in the corals to slough off, leaving behind white patches of exposed skeleton. The disease can devastate an entire coral colony in only a few weeks to months.  A great star coral (Montastraea cavernosa) colony infected with stony coral tissue lossdisease (SCTLD) on the coral reef in Fort Lauderdale, FL. The lesion, where the white band of tissue occurs, typically moves across the coral, killing coral tissue along the way. CREDIT: KellyPitts, Smithsonian. The exact cause of SCTLD is still unknown, but it appears to be linked to some kind of harmful bacteria. Currently, the most common treatment for SCTLD is using a paste that contains the antibiotic amoxicillin on diseased corals. However, antibiotics are not a silver bullet. This amoxicillin balm can temporarily halt SCTLD’s spread, but it needs to be frequently reapplied to the lesions on the corals. This takes time and resources, while increasing the likelihood that the microbes causing SCTLD might develop resistance to amoxicillin and related antibiotics. “Antibiotics do not stop future outbreaks,” Valerie Paul, a study co-author and the head scientist at the Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, Florida, said in a statement. “The disease can quickly come back, even on the same coral colonies that have been treated.” Finding the right probiotic Paul and her colleagues have spent over six years investigating whether beneficial microorganisms (aka probiotics) could be a longer lasting alternative to combat this pathogen. Just like humans, corals are host to communities known as microbiomes that are bustling with all different types of bacteria. Some of these miniscule organisms produce antioxidants and vitamins that can help keep their coral hosts healthy.  First, the team looked at the microbiomes of corals that are impervious to SCTLD to try and harvest probiotics from these disease-resistant species. In theory, these could be used to strengthen the microbiomes of susceptible corals.  They tested over 200 strains of bacteria from disease-resistant corals and published a study in 2023 about the probiotic Pseudoalteromonas sp. McH1-7 (or McH1-7 for short). Taken from the great star coral (Montastraea cavernosa), this probiotic produces several antibacterial compounds. Having such a stacked antibacterial toolbox made McH1-7 an ideal candidate to combat a pathogen like SCTLD. They initially tested McH1-7 on live pieces of M. cavernosa and found that the probiotic reliably prevented the spread of SCTLD in the lab. After these successful lab tests, the wild ocean called next. Testing in the ocean The team conducted several field tests on a shallow reef near Fort Lauderdale, focusing on 40 M. cavernosa colonies that showed signs of SCTLD. Some of the corals in these colonies received a paste containing the probiotic McH1-7 that was applied directly to the disease lesions. They treated the other corals with a solution of seawater containing McH1-7 and covered them using weighted plastic bags. The probiotics were administered inside the bag in order to cover the entire coral colony.   “This created a little mini-aquarium that kept the probiotics around each coral colony,” Paul said. For two and a half years, they monitored the colonies, taking multiple rounds of tissue and mucus samples to see how the corals’ microbiomes were changing over time. They found that  the McH1-7 probiotic successfully slowed the spread of SCTLD when it was delivered to the entire colony using the bag and solution method. According to the samples, the probiotic was effective without dominating the corals’ natural microbes.  Kelly Pitts, a research technician with the Smithsonian Marine Station at Ft. Pierce, Floridaand co-lead author of the study treats great star coral (Montaststraea cavernosa) colonies infected with SCTLD with probiotic strain McH1-7 by covering the coral colony in a plastic bag, injecting a probiotic bacteria solution into the bag and leaving the bag for two hours to allow for the bacteria to colonize on the coral. CREDIT: Hunter Noren. Fighting nature with nature While using this probiotic appears to be an effective treatment for SCTLD among the reefs of northern Florida, additional work is needed to see how it could work in other regions. Similar tests on reefs in the Florida Keys have been conducted, with mixed preliminary results, likely due to regional differences in SCTLD. The team believes that probiotics still could become a crucial tool for combatting SCTLD across the Caribbean, especially as scientists fine tune how to administer them. Importantly, these beneficial bacteria support what corals already do naturally.  “Corals are naturally rich with bacteria and it’s not surprising that the bacterial composition is important for their health,” Paul said. “We’re trying to figure out which bacteria can make these vibrant microbiomes even stronger.”

IT Pros ‘Extremely Worried’ About Shadow AI: Report By John P. Mello Jr. June 4, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Enterprise IT Lead Generation Services Fuel Your Pipeline. Close More Deals. Our full-service marketing programs deliver sales-ready leads. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee! Learn more. Shadow AI — the use of AI tools under the radar of IT departments — has information technology directors and executives worried, according to a report released Tuesday. The report, based on a survey of 200 IT directors and executives at U.S. enterprise organizations of 1,000 employees or more, found nearly half the IT pros (46%) were “extremely worried” about shadow AI, and almost all of them (90%) were concerned about it from a privacy and security viewpoint. “As our survey found, shadow AI is resulting in palpable, concerning outcomes, with nearly 80% of IT leaders saying it has resulted in negative incidents such as sensitive data leakage to Gen AI tools, false or inaccurate results, and legal risks of using copyrighted information,” said Krishna Subramanian, co-founder of Campbell, Calif.-based Komprise, the unstructured data management company that produced the report. “Alarmingly, 13% say that shadow AI has caused financial or reputational harm to their organizations,” she told TechNewsWorld. Subramanian added that shadow AI poses a much greater problem than shadow IT, which primarily focuses on departmental power users purchasing cloud instances or SaaS tools without obtaining IT approval. “Now we’ve got an unlimited number of employees using tools like ChatGPT or Claude AI to get work done, but not understanding the potential risk they are putting their organizations at by inadvertently submitting company secrets or customer data into the chat prompt,” she explained. “The data risk is large and growing in still unforeseen ways because of the pace of AI development and adoption and the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about how AI works,” she continued. “It is becoming more humanistic all the time and capable of making decisions independently.” Shadow AI Introduces Security Blind Spots Shadow AI is the next step after shadow IT and is a growing risk, noted James McQuiggan, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, a security awareness training provider in Clearwater, Fla. “Users use AI tools for content, images, or applications and to process sensitive data or company information without proper security checks,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Most organizations will have privacy, compliance, and data protection policies, and shadow AI introduces blind spots in the organization’s data loss prevention.” “The biggest risk with shadow AI is that the AI application has not passed through a security analysis as approved AI tools may have been,” explained Melissa Ruzzi, director of AI at AppOmni, a SaaS security management software company, in San Mateo, Calif. “Some AI applications may be training models using your data, may not adhere to relevant regulations that your company is required to follow, and may not even have the data storage security level you deem necessary to keep your data from being exposed,” she told TechNewsWorld. “Those risks are blind spots of potential security vulnerabilities in shadow AI.” Krishna Vishnubhotla, vice president of product strategy at Zimperium, a mobile security company based in Dallas, noted that shadow AI extends beyond unapproved applications and involves embedded AI components that can process and disseminate sensitive data in unpredictable ways. “Unlike traditional shadow IT, which may be limited to unauthorized software or hardware, shadow AI can run on employee mobile devices outside the organization’s perimeter and control,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This creates new security and compliance risks that are harder to track and mitigate.” Vishnubhotla added that the financial impact of shadow AI varies, but unauthorized AI tools can lead to significant regulatory fines, data breaches, and loss of intellectual property. “Depending on the scale of the agency and the sensitivity of the data exposed, the costs could range from millions to potentially billions in damages due to compliance violations, remediation efforts, and reputational harm,” he said. “Federal agencies handling vast amounts of sensitive or classified information, financial institutions, and health care organizations are particularly vulnerable,” he said. “These sectors collect and analyze vast amounts of high-value data, making AI tools attractive. But without proper vetting, these tools could be easily exploited.” Shadow AI Everywhere and Easy To Use Nicole Carignan, SVP for security and AI strategy at Darktrace, a global cybersecurity AI company, predicts an explosion of tools that utilize AI and generative AI within enterprises and on devices used by employees. “In addition to managing AI tools that are built in-house, security teams will see a surge in the volume of existing tools that have new AI features and capabilities embedded, as well as a rise in shadow AI,” she told TechNewsWorld. “If the surge remains unchecked, this raises serious questions and concerns about data loss prevention, as well as compliance concerns as new regulations start to take effect.” “That will drive an increasing need for AI asset discovery — the ability for companies to identify and track the use of AI systems throughout the enterprise,” she said. “It is imperative that CIOs and CISOs dig deep into new AI security solutions, asking comprehensive questions about data access and visibility.” Shadow AI has become so rampant because it is everywhere and easy to access through free tools, maintained Komprise’s Subramanian. “All you need is a web browser,” she said. “Enterprise users can inadvertently share company code snippets or corporate data when using these Gen AI tools, which could create data leakage.” “These tools are growing and changing exponentially,” she continued. “It’s really hard to keep up. As the IT leader, how do you track this and determine the risk? Managers might be looking the other way because their teams are getting more done. You may need fewer contractors and full-time employees. But I think the risk of the tools is not well understood.” “The low, or in some cases non-existent, learning curve associated with using Gen AI services has led to rapid adoption, regardless of prior experience with these services,” added Satyam Sinha, CEO and co-founder of Acuvity, a provider of runtime Gen AI security and governance solutions, in Sunnyvale, Calif. “Whereas shadow IT focused on addressing a specific challenge for particular employees or departments, shadow AI addresses multiple challenges for multiple employees and departments. Hence, the greater appeal,” he said. “The abundance and rapid development of Gen AI services also means employees can find the right solution [instantly]. Of course, all these traits have direct security implications.” Banning AI Tools Backfires To support innovation while minimizing the threat of shadow AI, enterprises must take a three-pronged approach, asserted Kris Bondi, CEO and co-founder of Mimoto, a threat detection and response company in San Francisco. They must educate employees on the dangers of unsupported, unmonitored AI tools, create company protocols for what is not acceptable use of unauthorized AI tools, and, most importantly, provide AI tools that are sanctioned. “Explaining why one tool is sanctioned and another isn’t greatly increases compliance,” she told TechNewsWorld. “It does not work for a company to have a zero-use mandate. In fact, this results in an increase in stealth use of shadow AI.” In the very near future, more and more applications will be leveraging AI in different forms, so the reality of shadow AI will be present more than ever, added AppOmni’s Ruzzi. “The best strategy here is employee training and AI usage monitoring,” she said. “It will become crucial to have in place a powerful SaaS security tool that can go beyond detecting direct AI usage of chatbots to detect AI usage connected to other applications,” she continued, “allowing for early discovery, proper risk assessment, and containment to minimize possible negative consequences.” “Shadow AI is just the beginning,” KnowBe4’s McQuiggan added. “As more teams use AI, the risks grow.” He recommended that companies start small, identify what’s being used, and build from there. They should also get legal, HR, and compliance involved. “Make AI governance part of your broader security program,” he said. “The sooner you start, the better you can manage what comes next.” John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John. Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account. Related Stories More by John P. Mello Jr. view all More in IT Leadership

Over the past few weeks, VMware customers holding onto their perpetual licenses, which are often unsupported and in limbo, have reportedly begun receiving formal cease-and-desist letters from Broadcom. The message is as blunt as it is unsettling: your support contract has expired, and you are to immediately uninstall any updates, patches, or enhancements released since that expiration date. Not only that, but audits could follow, with the possibility of “enhanced damages” for breach of contract. This is a sharp escalation in an effort to push perpetual license holders toward VMware’s new subscription-only model. For many, it signals the end of an era where critical infrastructure software could be owned, maintained, and supported on long-term, stable terms. Now, even those who bought VMware licenses outright are being told that support access is off the table unless they sign on to the new subscription regime. As a result, enterprises are being forced to make tough decisions about how they manage and support one of the most foundational layers of their IT environments. VMware isn’t just another piece of enterprise software. It’s the plumbing. The foundation. The layer everything else runs on top of, which is precisely why many CIOs flinch at the idea of running unsupported. The potential risk is too great. A vulnerability or failure in your virtual infrastructure isn’t the same as a bug in a CRM. It’s a systemic weakness. It touches everything. This technical risk is, without question, the biggest barrier to any organization considering support options outside of VMware’s official offering. And it’s a valid concern.  But technical risk isn’t black and white. It varies widely depending on version, deployment model, network architecture, and operational maturity. A tightly managed and stable VMware environment running a mature release with minimal exposure doesn’t carry the same risk profile as an open, multi-tenant deployment on a newer build. The prevailing assumption is that support equals security—and that operating unsupported equals exposure. But this relationship is more complex than it appears. In most enterprise environments, security is not determined by whether a patch is available. It’s determined by how well the environment is configured, managed, and monitored. Patches are not applied instantly. Risk assessments, integration testing, and change control processes introduce natural delays. And in many cases, security gaps arise not from missing patches but from misconfigurations: exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, overly permissive access. An unpatched environment, properly maintained and reviewed, can be significantly more secure than a patched one with poor hygiene. Support models that focus on proactive security—through vulnerability analysis, environment-specific impact assessments, and mitigation strategies—offer a different but equally valid form of protection. They don’t rely on patch delivery alone. They consider how a vulnerability behaves in the attack chain, whether it’s exploitable, and what compensating controls are available.  Read more about VMware security Hacking contest exposes VMware security: In what has been described as a historical first, hackers in Berlin have been able to demo successful attacks on the ESXi hypervisor. No workaround leads to more pain for VMware users: There are patches for the latest batch of security alerts from Broadcom, but VMware users on perpetual licences may not have access. This kind of tailored risk management is especially important now, as vendor support for older VMware versions diminishes. Many reported vulnerabilities relate to newer product components or bundled services, not the core virtualization stack. The perception of rising security risk needs to be balanced against the stability and maturity of the versions in question. In other words, not all unsupported deployments are created equal. Some VMware environments—particularly older versions like vSphere 5.x or 6.x—are already beyond the range of vendor patching. In these cases, the transition to unsupported status may be more symbolic than substantive. The risk profile has not meaningfully changed.  Others, particularly organisations operating vSphere 7 or 8 without an active support contract, face a more complex challenge. Some critical security patches remain accessible, depending on severity and version, but the margin of certainty is shrinking.   These are the cases where enterprises are increasingly turning to alternative support models to bridge the gap—ensuring continuity, maintaining compliance, and retaining access to skilled technical expertise. Third-party support is sometimes seen as a temporary fix—a way to buy time while organizations figure out their long-term plans. And it can serve that purpose well. But increasingly, it’s also being recognized as a strategic choice in its own right: a long-term solution for enterprises that want to maintain operational stability with a reliable support partner while retaining control over their virtualization roadmap.What distinguishes third-party support in this context isn’t just cost control, it’s methodology.   Risk is assessed holistically, identifying which vulnerabilities truly matter, what can be addressed through configuration, and when escalation is genuinely required. This approach recognises that most enterprises aren’t chasing bleeding-edge features. They want to run stable, well-understood environments that don’t change unpredictably. Third-party support helps them do exactly that, without being forced into a rapid, costly migration or a subscription contract that may not align with their business needs.  Crucially, it enables organisations to move on their own timeline. Much of the conversation around unsupported VMware environments focuses on technical risk. But the longer-term threat may be strategic. The end of perpetual licensing, the sharp rise in subscription pricing, and now the legal enforcement of support boundaries all points to a much bigger problem: a loss of control over infrastructure strategy.  Vendor-imposed timelines, licensing models, and audit policies are increasingly dictating how organizations use the very software they once owned outright. Third-party support doesn’t eliminate risk—nothing can. But it redistributes and controls it. It gives enterprises more agency over when and how they migrate, how they manage updates, and where they invest. In a landscape shaped by vendor agendas, that independence is increasingly critical.  Broadcom’s cease-and-desist letters represent a new phase in the relationship between software vendors and customers—one defined not by collaboration, but by contractual enforcement. And for VMware customers still clinging to the idea of “owning” their infrastructure, it’s a rude awakening: support is no longer optional, and perpetual is no longer forever. Organizations now face three paths: accept the subscription model, attempt a rapid migration to an alternative platform, or find a support model that gives them the stability to decide their future on their own terms.  For many, the third option is the only one that balances operational security with strategic flexibility.  The question now isn’t whether unsupported infrastructure is risky. The question is whether the greater risk is allowing someone else to dictate what happens next. 

Programmatic video advertising is a complex, multi-layered topic. Multiple networks serving different audiences — advertisers on the demand side and publishers on the supply side — work together with third-party mediators to serve video ads to billions of end users in the blink of an eye.It’s also a multi-billion dollar industry under constant, rapid evolution, and understanding it is key to reaching your audience and maximizing ROAS. Wherever you are on the demand or supply-side of the mobile ad stack, you should be aware of how the programmatic ad service process works and where things are headed.Let’s dive into programmatic video advertising and go over what it is, identify several key trends for the future, and break down how to choose a programmatic video platform that’s right for you.In this post, we’ll cover the following:What is programmatic video advertising?A timeline of growth for programmatic video advertisingProgrammatic video trends to watchHow to choose a programmatic video advertising platformMake programmatic video easyWhat is programmatic video advertising?For years, direct media buying — where advertisers made direct deals with publishers to determine exactly where their ads would run — ruled the landscape. And while direct media buying still works for static media, the advent of interactivity through the internet and smartphones allows for users to be directly catered to based on their individual interests. That’s where programmatic video advertising comes in.But what’s a good programmatic video definition? Essentially, as ads are served to users in mobile games, through connected TV experiences like Roku, or social media platforms, they are bid on in real-time by ad networks. The value of the bids is determined by characteristics like user demographics, what game they’re playing or app they’re using, and the bid ceiling set by the advertiser. The winner of the bid has their video served to the user.What makes programmatic video advertising so mind-blowing is that all of these bids are happening automatically in the fractions of a second between the moment an ad is called (like when a user taps on a button to double their reward in a game) and when it’s served. Market forces determine the cost of an ad, and data like user acquisition and ROAS can be monitored in real-time. And while the whole market cycle can seem intimidating and highly-technical, platforms like the ironSource Exchange make it easier than ever to integrate and display ads.To learn more about the benefits of programmatic video advertising and the channels best suited for it, read our guide, What Is Programmatic Video Advertising?A timeline of growth for programmatic video advertisingThe programmatic video ad market has seen an explosion of growth over the last few years, and it shows no signs of slowing down.In 2019, surveys showed that programmatic video ad spending grew to more than $24B. Only two years later, that number shot up to $52B according to a 2021 report by eMarketer, with the potential for ad spend reaching $62.96B in 2022. Mobile ad spend accounts for two-thirds of all programmatic video spending, with connected TV following behind and steadily growing.And that’s just in the United States. Global programmatic video ad spending reached $112.9B in 2019, eventually hitting $155B in 2021 and accounting for 34% of all global programmatic ad spend.As smart device and mobile game adoption grows, so too will programmatic video grow to meet the demand.Read more about programmatic video growth and learn about the top programmatic advertising video players in Your Guide to the 2022 Programmatic Video Advertising Market.Programmatic video trends to watchMobile advertising technology moves fast, and it’s important to have a sense of where things are headed so you can stay a step ahead of the competition.In terms of ad content, the rise of TikTok as a social media platform has caused a shift in the kinds of ads companies are creating for the programmatic video marketplace. Ads themselves are starting to look like TikToks, often being repurposed from TikTok itself to suit the more specific needs of mobile games and other apps. Videos are shorter, filled with dances or direct conversations, and often embrace subtitles or other text alternatives like written signs to present information.Privacy moves made by Google and Apple have made waves throughout the industry, as the removal of third-party cookies and updated app tracking policies are forcing mobile ad companies to get creative with data solutions. Advertisers are looking to first-party data to replace information third-party cookies would normally provide, and are implementing solutions like rewarded ads and the offerwall to paint a better picture of user data. It’s also leading to a wider move toward consolidation, as agencies look across the demand- and supply-side stack for opportunities to shore up weaknesses and strengthen their offerings.How to choose a programmatic video advertising platformProgrammatic video advertising platforms integrate with the demand side and supply side of the mobile advertising stack, and determining which platform is best for you will depend on which side of the stack you’re on.Advertisers looking for the best way to increase their return on ad spend (ROAS) will want to find a platform that offers the following:A large audience of engaged usersFull-screen video offerings that won’t go unnoticedEasy testing for a variety of creative and placement optionsSDK integration that provides access to thousands of connected appsIf you’re an app publisher looking to maximize user engagement and revenue, you’ll want to find a platform that can:Connect your app with a large network of advertisersProvide rewarded videos and offerwallsEasily integrate via industry-standard SDKsProvide support for programmatic mediation so you can ensure impartiality on ad bidsCheck out our guide on How to Choose a Programmatic Video Advertising Platform: 8 Consideration for more details on how to pick a platform that suits your needs.Make programmatic video easyThere are a lot of moving parts within the programmatic video advertisement world, and it can seem like a lot to take in. You don’t have to sweat the hard stuff, though. The ironSource Programmatic Marketplace makes putting your ads in front of billions of engaged users in brand-safe environments with complete transparency easier than ever. Contact us today to learn more.

here comes the boom! Falcon 9 sonic booms can feel more like seismic waves Trajectories, wind shear, temperature gradients, topography, and weather can affect how a sonic boom spreads. Jennifer Ouellette – May 27, 2025 12:36 pm | 1 A Falcon 9 rocket lifted SPHEREx into orbit in March. Credit: NASA/Jim Ross A Falcon 9 rocket lifted SPHEREx into orbit in March. Credit: NASA/Jim Ross Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California, serves military space launch missions as well as launches for NASA and commercial entities like SpaceX. But how do all those launches affect residents living along the Central Coast? People might marvel at the spectacular visual display, but as launch activity at the base has ramped up, so have the noise complaints, particularly about the sonic booms produced by Falcon 9 launches, which can reach as far south as Ventura County. The booms rattle windows, frighten pets, and have raised concerns about threats to the structural integrity of private homes. There have been rockets launching from Vandenberg for decades, so why are the Falcon 9 launches of such concern? "Because of the Starlink satellites, the orbital mechanics for where they're trying to place these in orbit is bringing [the trajectories] closer to the coast," said Brigham Young University's Kent Gee, who described his research into sonic boom effects on neighboring communities in a press briefing at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans. And the launches are occurring much more frequently, from two to three launches per year in the 1980s to between five and seven launches each month today. There were 46 Falcon 9 launches out of the Vandenberg base in 2024 alone, per Gee. Gee joined a project called ECOBOOM (Environmental and Community Observation of Sonic Booms) to study the factors that can impact just how jarring those sonic booms might be, conducted jointly by BYU and California State University, Bakersfield, with cooperation from the Space Force. "Space Force is interested in this because they feel a sense of stewardship," said Gee. "These rockets from SpaceX and other providers are launched from the base for a variety of missions and they want to understand the effects both on and off base, trying to understand how they can complete the mission while minimizing [negative] impacts." Gee and his cohorts monitored 132 separate sonic booms last summer, relying on data gathered via a network of 25 or so acoustic monitoring stations located along 500 square miles, including the beaches of Isla Vista and further inland to the hills of Ojai. "The measurements were made in parks, people's backyards, parking lots, wastewater plants, and all sorts of different locations," said Gee. More bang than boom A view of a Falcon 9 rocket launch from a park in Ventura County. Credit: Kent Gee There has been a great deal of research on supersonic aircraft, but the sonic booms produced by rockets like the Falcon 9 are acoustically distinct, according to Gee. For instance, most sonic booms have two shock waves, but the Falcon 9 booster produces a boom with three shocks as it descends through the atmosphere after launch. Gee co-authored a paper earlier this year analyzing the acoustic signatures of three Falcon 9 flyback sonic booms. While the first and third shocks were what one might typically expect, the second central shock "is formed by a combination of the grid fins and the lower portions of the booster, including the folded landing legs," Gee and BYU colleague Mark C. Anderson wrote. "These lower portions of the booster produce a rarefaction wave that tends to migrate toward the back of the shock system while the grid fins produce a shock wave that tends to migrate toward the front of the shock system." Those shock waves merge, and their relative strengths determine where this second shock appears in the full sonic boom acoustic signature. Sonic booms from rockets are also lower frequency, with peaks of less than 1 Hz—below the range of human hearing. The result is less of a "boom" and more of a "bang," according to Gee, that can last a few seconds, compared to milliseconds for a typical acoustic wave. It's more akin to a seismic wave, particularly if one is indoors when it hits. "Sometimes you get a very low amplitude rumble, but it comes on suddenly, and it's there for a few seconds and disappears," he said. It's also one reason why the sonic booms can travel so far afield of the Vandenberg base. Could the similarities confuse California residents who might mistake a sonic boom for an earthquake? Perhaps, at least until residents learn otherwise. "Since we're often setting up in people's backyard, they text us the results of what they heard," said Gee. "It's fantastic citizen science. They'll tell us the difference is that the walls shake but the floors don't. They're starting to be able to tell the difference between an earthquake or a sonic boom from a launch." Launch trajectories of Falcon 9 rockets along the California coast. Credit: Kent Gee A rocket's trajectory also plays an important role. "Everyone sees the same thing, but what you hear depends on where you're at and the rocket's path or trajectory," said Gee, adding that even the same flight path can nonetheless produce markedly different noise levels. "There's a focal region in Ventura, Oxnard, and Camarillo where the booms are more impactful," he said. "Where that focus occurs changes from launch to launch, even for the same trajectory." That points to meteorology also being a factor: Certain times of year could potentially have more impact than others as weather conditions shift, with wind shears, temperature gradients, and topography, for instance, potentially affecting the propagation of sonic booms. In short, "If you can change your trajectory even a little under the right meteorological conditions, you can have a big impact on the sonic booms in this region of the country," said Gee. And it's only the beginning of the project; the team is still gathering data. "No two launches look the same right now," said Gee. "It's like trying to catch lightning." As our understanding improves, he sees the conversation shifting to more subjective social questions, possibly leading to the development of science-based local regulations, such as noise ordinances, to address any negative launch impacts. The next step is to model sonic booms under different weather conditions, which will be challenging due to coastal California's microclimates. "If you've ever driven along the California coast, the weather changes dramatically," said Gee. "You go from complete fog at Vandenberg to complete sun in Ventura County just 60 miles from the base." Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 1 Comments

The American bullfrog is native to the eastern United States but was introduced in the West. Voracious eaters with large mouths, their diets can include birds, bats, rodents, newts, snakes, and turtles. CREDIT: National Park Service. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Listening to frogs croak at night might sound like the perfect nature-focused getaway. But if those vocal amphibians are American bullfrogs and the place is in Yosemite National Park in California, that’s not really a good thing.  American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) are large frogs originally from the eastern United States, meaning that in California, they’re considered an invasive species. Humans introduced them in Yosemite in the 1950s, and within two decades they had become well established in the region.  “One reason American bullfrogs are among the top worst globally introduced pests is because they eat everything — anything that fits into their mouth,” Brian Todd, a professor at the University of California (UC), Davis’ Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, said in a statement.  The problem is that a lot of things can fit into the frogs’ mouths, from snakes and birds to rodents and baby turtles. “They’ve been causing declines to native species everywhere they’re introduced, which is around the world,” Todd added. A northwestern pond turtle hatchling at a study site in Yosemite. CREDIT: Sidney Woodruff/UC Davis. Northwestern pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) are one of only two native freshwater turtles in California, and they have seen a particularly dramatic population decline. Todd and colleagues thus decided to investigate whether this could also be linked to American bullfrogs.  In a study published recently in the journal Biological Conservation, the team monitored four native turtle habitats in Yosemite National Park, two of which also hosted the bullfrog. They immediately saw that native turtles sharing their habitat with American bullfrogs were fewer, older, larger, and heavier than those in habitats without them. In other words, adult turtles that can’t fit in the frog’s mouth.  An American bullfrog tadpole (left) is bigger than the young native northwestern pond turtle on the right of this photo. Bullfrogs often prey on native turtles in the western U.S., contributing to their decline. CREDIT: Sidney Woodruff/UC Davis. “The evidence so far suggests that bullfrogs are physically eating young western Pond turtles, which means the baby western pond turtles never grow up to become adults and the population will eventually disappear as adults are not replaced,” Todd tells Popular Science.  The researchers started removing American bullfrogs to see how this might impact the native turtle populations. Low and behold, when the researchers had almost completely eliminated the invasive species from both sites, baby northwestern pond turtles made a comeback. [ Related: It’s raining tiny toxic frogs. ] Furthermore, “as bullfrog presence declined, we started to hear other native frogs call and see native salamanders walking around,” Sidney Woodruff, lead-author of the study and an ecology PhD student at UC Davis, explained in the statement. “It’s nice to be able to go back to these sites and hear a chorus of native frogs calling again that previously would not have been heard.” As such, the study suggests that this could be a winning approach for supporting pond turtle populations in priority conservation areas where non-native bullfrogs are unlikely to make an unwelcome comeback.  “The best reason to eradicate invasive species or to prevent them from establishing in the first place is because of how damaging they can be to native ecosystems,” Todd tells Popular Science. “Invasive species can outcompete and eliminate desirable native species and cause declines in many endangered species. Invasive species can even damage human livelihoods by affecting crops or domesticated animals and they can spread diseases.”