1) You're right that "obvious hysterics" isn't the best possible label, but I couldn't think of a better one. 2) I cannot read anybody's mind, but anybody who

1) You're right that "obvious hysterics" isn't the best possible label, but I couldn't think of a better one. 2) I cannot read anybody's mind, but anybody who has spent any length of time online probably fully well knows that you're teeing up the Twitter outrage mob by posting that kind of comparison in the way that Hank Green did. 3) I'm not familiar with Hank Green, but I thought that the Timar Ivo Batis' response posted in that article gave a pretty good response pointing out that he knew tech better than that. > Sorry Hank but you know better about how tech works than to draw comparisons like that. Changing wording gives you the top result for this specific wording. You really do not want a machine guessing and always giving you the same results. Too much nuance. 4) I don't want to detract further from the overall point of the article. The main takeaway from this should be that even the best algorithms can have loads of problems with figuring out true knowledge and answering questions algorithmically, and there's probably issues with Google presenting their callout snippets as the answers to questions without better disclaimers or educating people that algorithms are just guesses that can be wrong. Every establishment figure talks all of the time about the dangers of misinformation, but Google has a system that is guaranteed to present lots of information wrong. This seems worthy of critical discussion.