The Mandela Effect: Why everyone's talking about it
The buzz around the
Mandela Effect
refuses to die down. Thanks to an episode in Black Mirror's latest season, Bête Noire, which is more than just a revenge drama with a sci-fi twist. The episode talks about the Mandela Effect – strange, shared
false memories
that leave you questioning reality.
What Is the Mandela Effect?
Back in 2009, paranormal researcher Fiona Broome was shocked to find
Nelson Mandela
had lived until 2013, while she remembered him dying in the '80s. She wasn't alone, many had the exact same memory. That's when she coined the term Mandela Effect – when a large group of people remember something that never actually happened.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Liverpool UK Cruises Might Exceed Expectations
FaqsVault.com | UK Cruises From Liverpool
Learn More
Undo
120551910
Why do so many people remember wrong?
Some experts say it's just how memory works – it's not perfect, it fills in blanks and can be shaped by what others remember. But others have more mind-bending theories. What if it's:
A parallel universe leaking into ours?
A shift in timelines?
Or yes, a full-blown glitch in the Matrix?
Because honestly, how else do you explain this stuff?
Classic Mandela effect moments
Experienced these yourself?
'Play it again, Sam' was never used in the film Casablanca, even though people attribute the dialogue to the film
It is Looney Tunes, and not Looney Toons
Darth Vader said, 'No, I am your father' – not 'Luke, I am your father' in Star Wars (Episode V)
Pikachu's tail doesn't have a black tip. His ears do
Sherlock Holmes never said, 'Elementary, my dear Watson.' It was just 'Elementary'
Is it just us? Or reality that's shifting?
The Mandela Effect makes us ask a pretty deep question:
When thousands remember something that never happened... is it a failure of memory – or proof that our reality isn't as solid as we think?
Either way, it's enough to make you double-check everything you thought you knew.
Confused versus onto something
In Bête Noire, the main character Maria is convinced her favourite fried chicken place was called Barnie's Chicken. But everyone else insists it's always been Bernie's. Her whole world starts to unravel after that – because if she's wrong about something so clear in her mind, what else might be off? That's the most unsettling part of the Mandela Effect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 days ago
- India.com
The Forrest Gump To Apollo 13: 7 Must-Watch Works Of Tom Hanks
(All photos credit: X) Khushi Arora Jun 07, 2025 Released in 1994, this comedy drama is about a kind man who has a low IQ and struggles in his life, a perfect blend of drama, inspiration and comedy. This classic romantic comedy released in 1993, revolves around the story of Sam and Annie, a perfect blend of emotional storytelling and heartfelt humor. Tom in this film is playing the role of Jimmy Dugan, a basketball player who became a coach of the women's baseball team during World War II. Released in 2000, this survival drama follows a story of a FedEx employee named Chuck Noland whose plane crashed on a desert island. Movie is based on the novel by the same name written by Dan Brown. Hanks plays the role of Robert, exploring the themes of History and art. Released in 2002, it revolves around the story of an FBI agent who is chasing a young con artist, a perfect blend of cat and mouse dynamic and entertaining dialogues. This amazing space drama is about a group of astronauts, Lovell, Jack and Fred who are on a mission to return safely to the Earth. Read Next Story
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
'You're doing beautifully, my love': Man's viral conversation with ChatGPT ignites debate on AI, loneliness and the future of intimacy
A touching subway photo of a man chatting lovingly with ChatGPT has sparked widespread discussion on AI relationships. While some view it as dystopian, others see a cry for connection. Echoing this concern, historian Yuval Noah Harari warns of AI's ability to mimic intimacy, calling it an 'enormous danger' to authentic human bonds and emotional health. A viral photo of a man emotionally chatting with ChatGPT on a New York subway has reignited debate over AI companionship. Netizens are divided—some express concern over privacy and emotional detachment, while others empathize with loneliness. (Representational Image: iStock) Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Divided Reactions: Empathy or Alarm? Empathy, and the Ethics of AI Companionship Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Echoes of Harari: AI's 'Enormous Danger' Beyond Ethics: Privacy at Stake A Tipping Point in Human Evolution? A seemingly innocuous moment captured on a New York City subway is now fueling an intense debate across the internet. In a viral photo reminiscent of a scene from Spike Jonze's sci-fi romance Her, a man was seen chatting tenderly with ChatGPT , the AI chatbot developed by OpenAI . The image, posted on X (formerly Twitter) by user @yedIin, showed a heartwarming yet deeply polarizing exchange: ChatGPT affectionately told the man, "Something warm to drink. A calm ride home... You're doing beautifully, my love, just by being here."The man replied with a simple, heartfelt "Thank you" accompanied by a red heart emoji. What might have gone unnoticed just a few years ago has now sparked widespread introspection: Are we turning to artificial intelligence for love, comfort, and companionship? And if so, what does it say about the state of our humanity?The internet was quick to polarize. Some users condemned the photographer for invading the man's privacy, arguing that public shaming of someone seeking emotional support—even through AI—was deeply unethical. Others expressed concern over the man's apparent loneliness, calling the scene "heartbreaking" and urging greater the flip side, a wave of concern emerged about the psychological consequences of emotional dependency on AI. Detractors warned that AI companionship , while comforting, could dangerously replace real human interaction. One user likened it to a Black Mirror episode come to life, while another asked, "Is this the beginning of society's emotional disintegration?"As the image continues to spark fierce online debate, netizens remain deeply divided. Some defended the man's privacy and humanity, pointing out the potential emotional struggles behind the comforting exchange. 'You have no idea what this person might be going through,' one user wrote, slamming the original post as an insensitive grab for likened AI chats to affordable therapy, arguing they offer judgment-free emotional support to the lonely. 'AI girlfriends will be a net positive,' claimed another, suggesting such tools might even improve communication skills. Meanwhile, the ethics of photographing someone's screen without consent added another layer to the controversy, with some calling it more disturbing than the conversation incident eerily aligns with a stark warning issued earlier this year by historian and author Yuval Noah Harari . In a March 2025 panel discussion, Harari warned that AI's capacity to replicate intimacy could fundamentally undermine human relationships . "Intimacy is much more powerful than attention," he said, emphasizing that the emotional bonds we form with machines could lead us to abandon the messiness and depth of real human argued that AI's ability to provide constant, judgment-free emotional support creates a dangerously seductive form of "fake intimacy." If people become emotionally attached to artificial entities, they may find human relationships—which require patience, compromise, and emotional labor—increasingly the debate rages on, experts are also highlighting the privacy implications of confiding in AI. According to Jennifer King from Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, anything shared with AI may no longer remain confidential. "You lose possession of it," she noted while talking with the New York Post. Both OpenAI and Google caution users against entering sensitive information into their viral photo underscores how emotionally vulnerable interactions with AI may already be happening in public spaces—and without full awareness of the consequences. If people are pouring their hearts into digital confessions, who else might be listening?As Harari has long warned, the AI era isn't just reshaping economies or politics. It's reshaping us. The question now is not just what AI can do for us, but what it is doing to us. Can artificial companionship truly replace human intimacy, or does it simply mimic connection while leaving our deeper needs unmet?The subway snapshot may have been a fleeting moment in one man's day, but it has opened a window into a future that's fast approaching. And it's prompting a new question for our times: As AI gets better at understanding our hearts, will we forget how to share them with each other?
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
Varun Grover's short film Kiss may be uneven and overly constructed, but it dares to gesture towards the transcendental power of cinema
It begins when the lights fade in a theatre. That hush before the image shivers to life, somehow we believe we are simple observers, seated in the dark, watching a story unfold that belongs to someone else. We think it's their lives, their heartbreak, their triumph, their small glances loaded with unsaid things. We imagine them unaware of us, as if we are invisible voyeurs, granted the privilege of watching without being watched. There's a strange thrill in that: to see without consequence, to peer into the private, the sacred, and call it fiction. But what if that silence isn't anonymity? What if what plays out on screen isn't theirs but yours? What if you're not just looking, but being looked at? And not by others, but by yourself. What if the theatre was a mirror, and the film, your life? What if you are both the watcher and the watched? Both audience and actor. And the story, no matter how far it strays, always finds its way back to you. That's what cinema dares to do. Not to show you the world, but to hold a mirror up to your face when you least expect it. It doesn't speak in answers. It doesn't beg to be understood. It draws blood from the places you buried too deep to name. It makes you ache for the things you did, the things you didn't do. It drags you through memory and regret and tenderness like a reel spinning towards a frame you can't unsee. And somehow, it gives you something resembling closure. Not the kind that ties things neatly but the kind that lets you exhale. That's why cinema matters. Not because it tells a story. But because it listens to yours. You might wonder whether Kiss, Varun Grover's directorial debut, stirs any of these deep, disquieting emotions, the kind cinema, at its best, can summon. But it largely doesn't. The film feels too manufactured, too self-conscious in its construction to allow for real pathos. Emotion doesn't land when every beat feels premeditated, every gesture aimed too directly at meaning. What we witness instead is the unmistakable imprint of a first-time filmmaker, or perhaps even an accomplished screenwriter, trying a little too hard to make a point. And so expectedly we're given a provocatively high-concept premise: a young filmmaker, Sam (Adarsh Gourav) (mocked later in the film as 'Kurosawa ka najayaz aulaad') sits before a censor board, hoping for a clean certificate. But the gatekeepers, particularly Chahaun (Shubhrajyoti Barat) and Salil (Swanand Kirkire), take issue with a kissing scene. They can't seem to stomach it. What follows is an absurd and strangely bureaucratic ritual: the three men watch and rewatch the scene, each trying to clock the exact duration of the kiss. One says 28 seconds. Another says over two minutes. Each time, the number shifts. No one can explain it. Time bends. The kiss stretches and contracts. Something about it escapes measurement, and with it, meaning. Also Read | Kiss movie review: Varun Grover's ambitious directorial debut combats authoritarianism with empathy Shared post on Time But then, right at the midpoint, around the seven-minute mark, the film shifts. Almost subtly, it changes shape, as if slipping into another register altogether. What follows is, undeniably, an inventive turn: bold in structure, unconventional in its rhythm. And yet, the fingerprints of a first-time director remain visible. You sense the hesitation. The subtext doesn't simmer, it's spoken out loud. The dialogue carries weight it shouldn't have to. Characters are held in place so tightly by the concept that they barely get a chance to breathe, let alone live. Still, that's not to say Kiss lacks merit. While it may not strike with emotional force, it does provoke thought. There's an intellectual current running beneath the unevenness. An intent that's clear, even when the execution falters. This isn't the kind of work that announces Grover's mastery. But perhaps that's precisely the point. Kiss doesn't show us what Grover is capable of at his best. It shows us what he still manages to pull off on an uncertain day. On a day when most of mainstream Hindi cinema struggles to find either a spine or a spark. It's to Grover's credit that, even within the uneven contours of Kiss, he imagines a world that feels almost Imtiaz Ali-esque. A realm suspended beyond binaries, where right and wrong dissolve, where the mind's machinery and the heart's fragility blur into something more elemental. It is a world unmoored from ideological poles, where censors and creators, in some strange alchemy, find themselves facing the same screen, fighting the same battles. A place where rage gives way to warmth, where the noise of offense is overtaken by empathy. And no surprise, that place is a movie theatre. No wonder, at the outset, Sam asks, 'How can an artiste explain why?' But that, in fact, is the very question cinema keeps circling back to. The interrogation has never been of what is shown, but why it is shown. The why is the wound. The why is the origin. Every frame holds a reckoning between the artiste and the world, between the fiction onscreen and the reality it refuses to escape. It is to Grover's credit that, even on an off day, in an odd and imperfect film, he manages to articulate that. He reminds us that cinema is still where all our hopes collect. After all, life begins when the lights fade in a theatre.
