I didn’t mean to suggest that they would’ve. I just named a government document with significant gravity behind it to affect a point similar to the author’s:

> There’s nothing inherently wrong with this style, but one would hardly want an official document or legal contract to appear “warm and soft.”

Consider the response I gave to the other child comment on this thread referring to a different document as a revision if that suits you. [1]

I’m sorry. I don’t know of nor do I have the wherewithal to find any correspondence from the State Department to bolster my argument that “humanist fonts” are not always suited to the tenor of all government correspondence. Oddly, none of the press releases on state.gov are available in PDF as far as I can tell.

Wait.

At least imagine this!

> The State Department is taking decisive action against five individuals who have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose. These radical activists and weaponized NGOs have advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states—in each case targeting American speakers and American companies. As such, I have determined that their entry, presence, or activities in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

<https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...>

In “Carlito”!

It’s already in “Open Sans”, which looks thinner and may have a taller X-height. What do you think of it? Not quite “warm”; certainly “soft”, I think. Should I feel concerned about this news? Or just alright?

Anodyne. That’s the way the words start to look after some time when set like this. How far away is that feeling from “banal”?

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/SAP-SJ...