Sounds to me like underneath it all the AI models are heavily dependent upon the news sites. The news sites are actually the platforms, the Googles is simply a fancy summarization and distribution tool. Without the news sites to pull content from, the models cannot formulate related answers. So really the news sites need to recognize their power and seriously modernize their methods of monetizing their content. Charge Google (or anyone else scraping their content) a massive fee to be permitted to scrape their content and "re-publish" it in the form of AI-summarized answers.

Case in point: vaccines. This is called the "public health paradox".

Link to original research article (which should actually be required to be included in every publication that includes the words: "new research shows X") https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... short explanation - they're in the air and so they're everywhere. "Until recently, the common belief was that PFAAs would eventually wash off into the oceans where they would stay to be diluted over the time scale of decades. (52) A recent study, (53) however, has provided evidence that certain PFAS, notably the long-chain PFAAs, which include the 4 PFAAs included in EFSA’s TWI, can be significantly enriched on sea spray aerosols (SSA) and transported in the atmosphere back to shore where they will be deposited and contaminate freshwaters, drinking waters and surface soils. This continual global cycling of PFAAs in the hydrosphere will lead to the continued exceedance of the above-mentioned guidelines. This finding is particularly worrying because (1) guideline values based on biological effects have continually decreased (20) and may not yet have reached the bottom as more scientific evidence emerges, (2) guidelines are currently based on only a few of the substances in the large PFAS class, (10) and (3) there is no evidence for the decline in environmental concentrations and thus environmentally derived exposures of PFAS. (54)" Conclusion - even if you don't agree with us, this is a big problem, one that we haven't fully quantified, and a mistake that we continue to make despite a long history of making the same mistake in the past... i.e., we're dumb, short-sighted, and we never learn. "Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with our conclusion that the planetary boundary for PFAS is exceeded, it is nevertheless highly problematic that everywhere on Earth where humans reside recently proposed health advisories cannot be achieved without large investment in advanced cleanup technology. Indeed, although PFOS and PFOA were phased out by one of the major manufacturers (3M) 20 years ago, it will take decades before levels in land-based water and precipitation approach low picogram per liter levels. Moreover, the problems associated with PFOS, PFOA, or 4 PFAAs are likely to be only the tip of the iceberg given that there are many thousands of PFAS in the class and the risks associated with most of them are unknown. (60) In view of the impacts of humanity’s chemical footprint on planetary health, it is of great importance to avoid further escalation of the problem of large-scale and long-term environmental and human exposure to PFAS by rapidly restricting uses of PFAS wherever possible. (61) Furthermore, as has been stated by ourselves (3) and others (7) before, society should not continually repeat the same mistakes with other persistent chemicals." The planet, in the long run, will be just fine as planets go... but humanity is systematically destroying the only biome we can actually live in.

The EV tax credit has nothing to do with itemizing or taking the standard deduction or not. Do your taxes the way you normally do without the EV credit. At the end you get either an amount you owe the government or the government owes you money. If you owe the federal government, then you apply the credit to the amount you owe to reduce that amount. The credit is "nonrefundable", meaning it won't convert your tax bill to a tax refund. If you owe more than the credit is worth, it reduces the amount you owe by the amount of the credit (e.g., you owe $10k, credit is $7.5k, after the credit you owe $10-$7.5 = $2.5k). If you owe less than the credit is worth, it reduces the amount you owe to 0 (e.g., you owe $5k, credit is $7.5k, after the credit you owe $5k-$5k = 0). https://www.efile.com/tax-cred... Also: "everyday Americans are living paycheck to paycheck" ok, then they're not buying brand new plug-in EVs "because of the sharp rise in costs due to #Bideninflation." wrong. inflation was happening due to covid savings massively increasing demand for everything all at once and corporations double-ordering to stockpile (same thing people did with toilet paper and hand sanitizer early on in the lockdown. There's going to be massive oversupply and related price crash in about a year when companies with massive stockpiles stop or slow ordering. " We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the rich using money from hard-working taxpayers." Despite what Deb seem to be implying (that "the rich" and "hard-working taxpayers" are not one and the same), "the rich" are a huge portion of "hard-working taxpayers" and they account for a massive portion of that tax revenue... so in the end the EV tax credit just returns some of their wealth back to them in return for purchasing items the government feels it needs to encourage (EVs). The uber wealthy (millionaires, billionaires) don't give a crap about $7.5k tax credits, but for a certain segment of earners (probably earning around $100k a year or more, with a mortgage and kids, looking to replace an existing gas vehicle, etc.) +/-$7500 is the difference between them buying the gas, hybrid, or EV model of a vehicle, and those people on the margin are who this policy is designed to target. Personally, i would have loved to get the tax credit for a RAV4 Prime, but Toyota didn't make enough of them and dealers are selling them for >$10k over MSRP, and thus negating the entire purpose of the tax credit. Ah supply and demand. Anyway, returning tax revenue to wealthy earners seems like a policy that Republican Deb Fisher would normally support. Odd.