=== ANCHOR POEM ===
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
a man walks into a library, picks a book, takes it home (legally), and begins
to read.
halfway through, he realizes there are three pages missing.
"How queer!" he thinks to himself, and takes it upon himself to fix this book.
So, he finds another copy of the book, scans those three pages, prints them
out at *just* the right size, and attaches them to the library book.
when finished reading the book, he returns it to the library without
mentioning his good deed.
if this action he performed is to be considered legal, then it should be
considered a transition of the medium that the media was inscribed upon.
Similarly, if the book was digital, and inscribed upon the owner's hard drive
using magnetic storage of zeroes and ones, would it be legal to repair said
book if one of the many .txt file chapters were missing?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
=== SIMILARITY RANKED ===
--- #1 fediverse/3498 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
... I do believe it should be, and if it is, then I do believe it should be
legal to *transfer* digital media, as the inscription upon one hard drive or
the other is as easily changed as a book might be handed to another.
the difference, of course, is that *any* move on a digital medium requires a
copy+delete operation. You cannot *move* a file on your computer, you first
copy it to the new location and then delete the original. This dual-operation
is abstracted away for the user, but that is how it *must* be done on a
mechanical level. There is no other way to do it.
Therefore, software piracy only applies if a person copies their file and
*does not delete the original*. Surely, to move a piece of digital media from
one folder-directory to another is legal? If so, then the mechanical process
of giving that media to another must be legal as well, so long as the original
is deleted.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #2 fediverse/3499 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
Much the same way that it is legal to create trash in a public park, but
illegal to leave it behind, so too should it be *legal* to move digital media
files from one owner to another, and *illegal* to not delete the original.
The dual operation of copy+delete must be legalized, while maintaining that
the copy operation alone is illegal, aside from personal backups.
How could you enforce that? Well... You can't. Your computer will do whatever
you tell it to, and if you change that fact then you necessarily remove one of
the primary use-cases of computation - the ability to command specific
instructions and be delivered a perfectly mechanical and deterministic result.
(random number generation aside, which isn't truly random at all).
Therefore, just as littering in a public place is generally considered to be
enforced by the "honor rule", so too must this new legislation governing the
transference of digital media be enforced as such.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #3 fediverse/3500 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────┐
║ If I, having watched a DVD, handed it to a friend to watch, would I be │
║ committing piracy? Only if I *sold* it to him. │
║ │
║ The material being transferred is that of the copyright holder - they hold the │
║ sole and monopolized right to sell their copy of the work. │
║ │
║ But if I, having created my own recording of the same digital media DVD but │
║ spoken in my own voice, tried to sell it, should it be considered legal? │
║ │
║ My mind goes to the production of after-school plays that high-school children │
║ will perform. The scripts that they use are licensed for a single purpose - │
║ the performance of a single play, performed a single time (or a few times over │
║ the course of a couple weeks). The owner of the play cannot *require* them to │
║ not perform the play more than a certain amount of time, it is however │
║ *honorable* to buy the scripts again if they want to perform it in 5 years │
║ time. I know for a fact there is rampant piracy that goes on for the beautiful │
║ works that are created by assholes or stingy companies. A script is just words. │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #4 fediverse/3501 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
Similarly, if someone wants to "perform" a piece of digital media, via a
"let's play" or perhaps a ROM hack or public screening, the copyright holder
cannot be allowed to *prevent* them from doing so. They must only be able to
demand a reasonable and non-exclusive fee in return for the privilege of
performance.
These performances are considered derivative works, but they are still works
on their own, and therefore should be able to be sold.
The greater the difference between the original and the newly created work,
the less the price must reflect the necessary "tax" levied by the original
owner, until eventually the work is so distinct that it cannot be considered
to be deriving from the original at all.
Consider a mod for a video game that replaces the dragons you typically fight
with giant cartoonish train engines. A silly sight to be sure, but people do
that. What percentage of the game is replaced? what percentage tax of the new
mod's price must be given to the original copyright holder?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #5 fediverse/2823 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────
@user-1364
*lawful good*
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #6 notes/non-competition-clause ---
══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
what if there was a law that all trade secrets are to be free? what if
copyright
only prevented people from harming those they compete with? For example, as a
media production company Disney could not host the content of other media con-
-glomerate. But regular ordinary people would.
The idea would be that if you wanted to change yourself to align with the
ideals
of a corporation, you could watch it on their streaming site. Then you'd be
contributing your attention, which is bought and sold by our selves. Content
creators could stream untethered, and collect payments however they pleased.
The attention is what garners, that price that is bartered, sold on the market
for all of us. Attend not ye sinners, and failures of our innards, what more
can
we charter for our souls? Accosted by our jams, and drilled as hard as I can,
our notebooks are much more than charming. Accumulated designs, of theories
that
are out of our minds, compelling and driving us forward. The fellowship that we
be, internally and under our seats, connecting us to ground at our own shoes.
humans are not time. They are the whispers of the undying. Projections of
fore-sought virtues.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #7 fediverse/3266 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────
how many people do you think in the world know that screenshots of a website
are not admissible proof because they can be trivially doctored by editing the
html?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #8 fediverse/5617 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────
it should be a legal requirement that any data gathered permanently or
semi-permanently on a user of software must ALSO make a copy on the user's
device.
WITH change-history and graphs.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────┴───────────┘
--- #9 messages/1463 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────
if the answer is "I can't because of the rules" to deprive someone of
something objectively virtuous,
[memory-corruption-then-stack overflow-during-re-explanation]
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧═════──────┘
--- #10 messages/259 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────
If corporations can't be held liable for the content we post, then we own that
content. And if we own it, they cannot use it.
Ah, but scrapers. Sounds like the ISPs responsibility.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #11 messages/1240 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────
sanctified into law: freedom of imagination
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧════───────┘
--- #12 fediverse/2261 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────
@user-1209
if I lived in a lawful time then perhaps I would have time to sue them. alas
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #13 fediverse/306 ---
════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────────
the only unethical act is a destructive application of power to an
non-consenting subject.
every ethical question is an abstraction of this definition.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #14 fediverse/3313 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────
what if it was illegal to add network connectivity to a device that the user
didn't explicitly request to have network connectivity?
I'm picturing any device being sold going forward to have a little radio
button with like "add network features (+10$)" and "no networking included
(+0$)"
boom, no more IoT
no more dishwashers phoning home telemetry
no more consensual privacy ~~invasions~~ desecrations
no more "I thought it was just a polaroid camera why does it have bluetooth
enabled without broadcasting a pairing request?"
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #15 fediverse/5155 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────
no rights, no obligation.
I keep many rights.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────┴───────────┘
--- #16 fediverse/5084 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────
if you call the police when you witness a crime, you're assisting arrest
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────┴───────────┘
--- #17 fediverse/433 ---
╔═════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────┐
║ @user-317 │
║ │
║ broke: if you deactivate your account on a website like Twitter or Facebook or │
║ whatever it gives that company that owns said website the opportunity to │
║ replace your persona with an LLM that spouts whatever agenda they want advance. │
║ │
║ woke: you should post on whatever website people will hear you. Specifically │
║ whichever website that has an audience that consists of the people that you │
║ want to hear. │
║ │
║ bespoke: let's all federate so that we can all decide who we want to trust - │
║ which singular entity we want to trust. Which single point of failure (the │
║ instance moderators) we want to trust to publish the thoughts of our minds │
║ which align to the design of our intentions. Surely there's no way that could │
║ go wrong. │
║ │
║ thing-beyond-bespoke: the only words you can trust are those that are spoken │
║ by the people you care about using physical manifestations that correspond to │
║ auditory expressions that project into your ears using primarily lungs, │
║ tongues, and mouths. │
║ │
║ thing-beyond-the-thing-beyond-bespoke: fuck me. │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩══════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #18 fediverse/368 ---
╔════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────┐
║ EULAs are unenforcable because they're a one-way contract. │
║ │
║ "use our service in these ways" is not a fair requirement when you aren't │
║ getting anything in return. The service has traditionally qualified, but these │
║ days it's more competitive to promise to be good. Basically, "if we don't │
║ achieve these metrics (very minutely detailed explanations of the maximum harm │
║ they could cause to the environment) then you can sue us on our dime. We'll │
║ pay for your lawyer. If you accept, then you can use our service, BUT ONLY if │
║ you don't pirate it or whatever. And we'll promise to be good, and if you │
║ don't think that's good enough... Okay let us know and we'll consider │
║ including it." │
║ │
║ A reasonable base target for "maximum harm to the environment" is net zero. │
║ Even better is total zero. But that's often impossible, and besides nature can │
║ heal a little scratch or two. But like... pumping toxic chemicals into │
║ waterways, polluting the air and clouds, bulldozing precious habitats... yeah │
║ that's too much. we must live in tandem. │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩═════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #19 fediverse/1440 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
@user-521
design structures and institutions such that no person can harm another, no
matter how evil they are.
design structures and institutions such that nobody goes hungry, and nobody is
objectively poor. Unless they keep breaking things or whatever, then you
should maybe let them be destitute.
Good and Evil should contest in the spiritual realm, not the legal one.
"The only unethical act is an application of power to an unconsenting subject"
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #20 notes/elementary-problems ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
it's often considered a sin to defame the works of others. we naturally strive
to inspire confidence in our allies, so we always try to be on our best
behavior.
= so =
through meanings interpreted from our behavior, there is a tendency to listen
to
that which is most outstanding. but not all of the truths can be found in a
book, sometimes you need to be [out in the field standing]
[like a scarecrow]
[silly how strange it seems. that listening brings out our own behavior. it's
like it's built into our functioning, that we must obey the pull of the water.
I don't understand it, nor do I appreciate any sense of pursuit when I'm using
it, I simply wish to understand. I try and write things down, but nobody reads
them. or at least nobody responds to them. they used to, but not for every one.
I believe the things I do are useful. why would I otherwise do them? but
there's
not always a
= so =
correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no reason a windows partition couldn't
alter the nature of some of the files in the linux partition? I mean, none of
the filesystems from linux are in play, because it's basically just dead weight
on the computer when Windows is being booted. why wouldn't it change and alter
it?
and while yes, something could simultaneously be done in the other direction
too - linux spying on the Windows partition. And everything has to be able to
be run in a VM without triggering any false positives, so the issues aren't
able
tobe solved so easily. not with any one bit of guidance, it must always be more
thorou. [thorough]
I want to play World of Warcraft
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #21 fediverse/5652 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CW: cursed │
└──────────────────────┘
@user-443
natural disaster vulnerability is freedom from liability if they ever did lose
their charges.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────┴───────────┘
--- #22 fediverse/642 ---
╔══════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────────┐
║ Relinquish your privacy, and you deserve not a scrap of it. │
║ │
║ "those who would sacrifice a bit of [privacy] for a bit of [convenience] │
║ deserve neither" - babe-roham lincoln or thomas bettersons or something. │
║ │
║ ... │
║ │
║ EDIT: okay but so like c'mon it's the 21st century we live in a society │
║ │
║ yeah │
║ │
║ there's a lot of paths we could take, that's the nature of circumstate. │
║ Depends on who's yearning for the future... true true okay how about we all │
║ share a singular belief - whatever a fully open sourced and non-biased machine │
║ decided was our best and most unified direction? then we could slowly build │
║ out accomodations that would provide for people who didn't agree with the same │
║ things that we did. Essentially, "we're in charge because we're the largest, │
║ but we're going to provide to you to the equal ratio that you're population │
║ represents." Essentially, we all can have what we want. AKA TRUE JUSTICE, like │
║ Adventure Time when Finn solves a problem by helping BOTH SIDES of the │
║ argument. (usa politics are not comprehensive). │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩═══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #23 fediverse/6366 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────┐
║ you should never be able to consent to something you don't understand (terms │
║ and conditions) without being asked specifically if they understand (the term │
║ or condition) │
║ │
║ but people should still be able to consent to something they don't understand │
║ (terms&conditions style code of hammurabi structure) if it's similar to │
║ their prior demonstrated behavior. │
║ │
║ why don't they share terms/conditions cookies and then we don't have to fake │
║ agree every time │
║ │
║ just... abstract away the identifying characteristics. Most legal contracts │
║ have LLM-discernable characteristics. │
║ │
║ "what if she's not the answer, but instead the most alluring?" ha, so says the │
║ non-believer. │
║ │
║ what if LLMs were rated based on their success rate at producing correct │
║ results for reporting or consensus-building asks │
║ │
║ look... I don't care if AI computers violate the sanctity of the sport. The │
║ goal is to solve problems, so if someone comes to you and says "hey, you busy? │
║ can you help me with an ask?" you say "I solved it, here's how you use it: │
║ connect the │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════┴───────────┘
--- #24 fediverse/1604 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────
is it against fedi law to post screenshots of your past liked posts? like,
would that be doxxing people?
I'm thinking like a "youtube rewind" but like, "here's what I'm into" and like
"I could have boosted them but I put them in a 25mb zip file instead so you
can share them more easily which tbh is a greater honor than being boosted
because, like, as long as you're alive that hard drive's gonna follow you and
someday in like 30 years I'll see it and think of you" but also "aren't you
scared that this hard drive of yours will fall into the wrong hands" and like
"yeah that's why I encrypt it because then a stray neutrino could wipe my
drive"
... would that be unethical, or would it be kinda sweet and give us a
perspective on what a single slice of the "fediverse" was like at a particular
time? And better question, would that be something worth automating because I
already did like 60% of that for my own posts, could probably just tweak it to
do liked posts as well.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #25 fediverse/3931 ---
╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┐
║ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
║ │ CW: politics-mentioned-DRM-media-piracy-pol │ │
║ └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
║ │
║ │
║ if people pirate media, it's more of an indication that they'd rather spend │
║ their money elsewhere rather than an indictment of their character. │
║ │
║ torrenting movies is easy. Kinda makes me think all media should run on a │
║ "tip" system where you pay for better service after receiving service. │
║ │
║ I mean, after all, that's how they justify underpaying restaurant workers, │
║ isn't it? │
║ │
║ "if they want more money, they should work for it" │
║ │
║ yeah, so... maybe we need something more than Marvel, Disney. Maybe we need │
║ more cool, small games from designers who believe in what they're doing. Maybe │
║ copyright holders should demand a standardized cut, rather than exclusive │
║ distribution rights. maybe maybe maybe. │
║ │
║ truth is nothing will be solved unless the problem is addressed at the root. │
║ For every hole you patch in the boat, there's a guy walking around with a │
║ hammer. │
║ │
║ Honestly... I don't believe there's any reason for someone to be a millionaire │
║ except to compete on the "wealth" leaderboards. │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩══════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #26 fediverse/784 ---
image.png
══════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────
@user-584 @user-585
perhaps not a while, but rather "with great difficulty"
difficult things often take time, but not necessarily. We have the power of
the internet now, something that our hundred thousand years or more of
starvation lacked. we can coordinate on a scale that is beyond all reason - a
scale that mirrors the development of the printing press in terms of it's
relative magnitude.
we have been using it to improve ourselves. I mean, the average teenager 50
years ago would be considered an absolute ding-wad today, someone who lacks
basic emotional intelligence and is completely at odds with what we value as a
cohesive and heartfelt society. And yet they were better than those who came
before them. Thus does posterity march forth, taking the world that was
granted to them by their forefathers and stepping out into the unknown of the
future with all the lessons they could bring with them.
what happens when the lessons are infinitely transferable and recordable?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #27 fediverse/1628 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────┐
║ so I had this idea about this collection of social media screenshots that I │
║ took over the past ~6 months ago. I thought about redacting the names from │
║ them in order to preserve privacy, and then I thought about boosting someone │
║ on Mastodon without their consent. Shouldn't they be able to decide whether or │
║ not their name is attached to the content they create? │
║ │
║ An un-sourced claim should be treated as the author expressing themselves │
║ through the words of another, rather than the expression of the person who │
║ isn't necessarily being quoted. Feels the most ethical to me, that we know │
║ where the source of our news is coming from, so it's less likely that they're │
║ faking it. "Blind trust" is nice and all for trust-less systems, but society │
║ is based on trust. │
║ │
║ as a collective, it is important to decide how our collective obligations │
║ create and reify our current situations. we live in contact with one another, │
║ in one way or another, so it's important to design a set of common grounds. │
║ │
║ have you ever met me at the park? │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #28 fediverse/358 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────
@user-266
digital literacy is literacy, and most people don't read books
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #29 fediverse/5880 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────
I legitimately think computers should write code and software engineers should
write legislation and lawyers should resolve problem tickets made by aggrieved
citizens while judges do their best to just keep the boat floating
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─┴───────────┘
--- #30 fediverse/4260 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
┌───────────────────────────┐
│ CW: controversial-opinion │
└───────────────────────────┘
you can just... edit the html by pushing f12 and suddenly any conversation in
the history of the world could have taken place
digital pictures are *not* evidence
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────┴───────────┘
--- #31 fediverse/5821 ---
image.png
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────┐
║ education: if you have disparate educational outcomes, such as bad teachers in │
║ poor areas, then what you should do is dedicate more effort toward getting the │
║ good ones to teach the bad ones how to be good at their job. Not in a │
║ prescriptivist way, more like a "I do these sorts of things by thinking about │
║ them in this way" - essentially, homework and less student-load for those who │
║ are failing their teaching gradescores. [suddenly, enslaved to the metric] │
║ moreso than now? besides, if students deserve to be judged then so do parent │
║ teacher conveyances. "are you raising this kid right? she's brilliant, but │
║ always comes in full of plight." [suddenly, cultural marxism, which is what │
║ they mean when they are really trying to say "oppressive cultural ideology" │
║ because literally communism and authoritarianism are the same thing to them. │
║ They can't conceive of oppression in any other context.] sorry what was I │
║ saying? oh yes education. by the way I know that this makes this impossible to │
║ read, and I'm sorry for that... │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────┴───────────┘
--- #32 fediverse/3698 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
┌────────────────────────┐
│ CW: politics-mentioned │
└────────────────────────┘
the law is a weapon to be wielded by the masses to subjugate their masters
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #33 fediverse/1556 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
┌───────────────────────────┐
│ CW: politics-scary-maybe? │
└───────────────────────────┘
if saying something puts you on a list, then is your speech really free?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────┴───────────┘
|