>>4621624

>>4621704

>will just add it to notables as many times as needed

Not sure repeating a post in notables for purposes of emphasis is right course, but agreed on not putting in global notables for such purposes.

Globals were originally for board admin messages and are best reserved for that. Sometimes used for unambiguously valuable general resources, but even that lets in a degree of subjectivity. Once it becomes an even less stringently defined category – just an elevated extra special notable – it invites too much dissention over what makes the cut off.

>>4621933

>lined up with what I was thinking

Cool. Appreciate the open comms

>a couple notables of the diagram/how to read it, but each different

Multiple interpretations/variants on a theme aren't necessarily repeats, going deep on recent Q content is what we do. Was just cautioning against using notables for advocacy of a specific message via intentional repetition. Best way to protect against natural subjectivity is to follow objective criteria.