Google Maps users spot mysterious face on top of mountain face in Chile
The mysterious face on a mountain top in Cabo de Hornos, Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica, Chile, has been found on the app.
Its appearance looks like a v-shaped head, with wide alien-like eyes.
Scott C Waring, a UFO hunter, stumbled upon the strange mountain top - located at 55°32'35.0"S 69°15'56.0"W - when he was scouring Google Maps.
He said: "Are these aliens?
"The oldest aliens in our universe might be seen as angels or demons with such powers...or even god or gods."
After Scott made the discovery, he shared his strange finding in a video on his YouTube channel UFO Sightings Daily, and any fellow alien hunters expressed their excitement in the video's comments section.
One user wrote: "I found some in Antarctica I couldn't work out what they were or are at first I thought they were like some sort of digital error or random digital program issue but now I'm starting think your right and these could be like those ancient nasca glyphs but good find mate."
A second person penned: "This is truly the most significant find to date! Bravo!"
And a third YouTuber said: "Woowee baby."
However, scientists say people confuse geological structures for faces or skulls because of pareidolia.
Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon where the brain turns dymanic information into familiar patters and objects, such as a face.
Doctor Robin Kramer, an expert on face perception from the University of Lincoln, told the Daily Mail: "Our face detection system has evolved to be great at detecting faces and it makes more sense to err on the side of caution by occasionally seeing faces where there aren't any, rather than missing faces where there are.
"Face pareidolia explains why we might see faces in geological structures, as well as pretty much anything else."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
07-08-2025
- Perth Now
Deep sea starfish goes viral for resemblance to TV character
A rarely-seen deep sea creature has become an internet sensation after striking an uncanny resemblance to a much-loved children's TV character. Schmidt Ocean Institute shared video footage of its latest expedition to the Underwater Oases of Mar Del Plata Canyon in Argentina, which reaches estimated depths of 3500 meters. In the YouTube video, after the deep-sea rover roams along the sea floor past coral mounds and fish, it hovers over a bright orange starfish with two symmetrical bumps on it which many were quick to point out looked like a human buttocks. The images from 1000 meters deep have ignited imaginations all around the world, with many claiming that the starfish looks like Patrick Star from the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. 'It's big-bottomed Patrick!!' one person commented. 'Patrick's lost his pants!' a second person wrote. Scientists controlling the ROV even zoomed in on the animal's bottom, providing viewers with a close-up. Credit: YouTube 'I love that people from all over the world are here to see Patrick,' another commented. 'There's a gym at the bottom of the sea,' a fourth joked. The cartoon character of Patrick is a naïve and overweight pink starfish, also the best friend of SpongeBob — who's the main character in the famous Nickelodeon series which first aired in 1999. The heartwarming comparison has sparked hilarity online, with accounts joking they've found the real Patrick and one person even crocheting the starfish. The cartoon character of Patrick is a naïve and overweight pink starfish in the famous Nickelodeon series which first aired in 1999. Credit: Nickelodean One person crocheted a version of the starfish. Credit: X This is not the first time scientists have discovered sea creatures that closely resemble the SpongeBob series. In 2021, marine scientists spotted a yellow sea sponge and pink starfish seemingly hanging out together, according to The Daily Mail. The eye-cathcing duo were spotted on the side of an underwater mountain around 200 miles east of New York City. The real-life sea spnge and starfish were spotted on the side of an underwater mountain called Retriever seamount. Credit: Christopher Mah / X 'I normally avoid these refs... but WOW. REAL LIFE SpongeBob and Patrick!' he said. Experts have previously explained the reason why starfish may sometimes appear to have a human-like bum. 'Sea stars sometimes relax their arms, such as when they are eating,' Nate Jaros, curator of fish and invertebrates at the Aquarium of the Pacific, said, according to The Daily Mail. 'Sometimes gravity can cause internal components to slump,' he explained.
The Advertiser
06-08-2025
- The Advertiser
Is this necessary protection for children, or a missed opportunity?
As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely.
Perth Now
05-08-2025
- Perth Now
A livestream of deep sea creatures transfixes Argentina
Transparent-faced fish drift through dusky waters. Soft sponges peek through the soot of the seafloor. Only occasional mutters among marine biologists break the thick silence. Somehow, this livestream of sea life in the South Atlantic has Argentines hooked. The researchers behind this remotely operated vehicle filming life-forms 4000 metres under sea told The Associated Press on Monday that they never expected their wonky deep-sea expedition to become such a social media sensation. The video feed has attracted more than 1.6 million views a day on YouTube, dominated TV news broadcasts and even sparked a national conversation about the defunding of Argentine science under libertarian President Javier Milei. Most Argentine researchers on the expedition come from Conicet, Argentina's leading scientific funding and research body, shining a light on the institute's work at a moment when its funding is under attack. President Milei has taken his bureaucracy-slashing chainsaw to Argentine research projects and grants, curbing science spending as a part of a broader drive to eliminate Argentina's chronic fiscal deficit and bring down inflation. State-backed science organisations have lost 4000 positions in the last year and a half — a combination of layoffs, frozen contracts and resignations over poor working conditions and low pay. Many warn that the measures are setting off a brain drain. Seizing on the surge of public excitement about Conicet, researchers have called for a 48-hour nationwide strike on Wednesday to draw attention to their plight. Although Milei has not commented on the livestream, his allies have expressed disdain. "They should livestream an offshore drilling operation instead," said Alejandro Álvarez, an official in Milei's government, referring to growing crude production in Argentina's Vaca Muerta shale formation — an oil boom that Milei hopes can help revive the nation's crisis-stricken economy. "It's a beautiful process of wealth creation and natural resource exploitation that will make Argentina greater." In the meantime, Argentines seem content to be mesmerised by orange starfish.
