[throwaway1004]

Yes, I made sure to highlight that this was the (unreliable) source, consider it an invitation for the history buffs to chime in.

Food for thought: if I had posted the very first source available on Google as authorative, with no actual knowledge of my own to make the claim, that could be more misleading on aggregate, right?

[daveguy]

Agreed, it's not so much where you find the source, but the source itself. Unquestioningly taking "first result" is just as bad as taking anything from an LLM and representing it as a factual answer. Also, kagi generally has higher quality search results (that can be checked).