Add note about CarbonType

docs/moreinfo.html

@@ -32,6 +32,14 @@ <h2>THE PROBLEM.</h2>
         <li>In the second image, there are three &lsaquo;N&rsaquo;&rsquo;s. Yet, they all look exactly the same. A real typewriter can, quite rarely, have one of its letters damaged, or misaligned, such that that letter regularly makes an inferior strike to all the other letters. However, this degree of regularity is <em>impossible</em>; could Underwood or Remington have acheived it, they would have leapt for joy. It is therefore clearly a digital facsimile and not a real typewritten document.
     </ul>
     </p>
+    <p>
+    If you still can't see it, as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/typography/comments/ei3gr7/tt2020_is_an_advanced_open_source_hyperrealistic/fcnw7kv/">u/Bureaucrat_Conrad on Reddit</a> wasn't able to, simply compare the images in the movie to an old-school typewriter font, <a href="https://www.1001fonts.com/carbontype-font.html">CarbonType</a>, &copy; 2004 Vic Fieger, which has one glyph per character:<br>
+    <img src="problem4.png" style="width:20em">
+    <img src="problem2.jpg" style="width:20em">
+    </p>
+    <p>
+    It is abundantly clear that this is the font they used, and no typewriter was involved in the production of this scene, even though the documents were the primary object of the scene.
+    </p>
     <p>While working on the project, incredibly, another bad typewriter scene intruded upon my life. I don't often sit around and watch movies, so I suppose there are only two possibilities:
     <ol type="a">
         <li> There are so many of these unrealistic typewritten documents in late-2010&rsquo;s cinema that almost any movie with a typewritten document in it will be hopelessly unrealistic, <em>or</em></li>