In what circumstances is the officer not removable at the will of the President in this context? From my knowledge the house impeaches and the Senate holds the trial

Is this inciting that in order to be given civil liberty, you must obeyed by the laws set in place?

What exactly is this stating? I this suggesting that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over foreign powers, and only take cases that are related to their branch?

I do not understand how this statement relates to what was said before. If I'm correct, the previous statements was suggesting that the supreme and inferior courts have certain jurisdiction. Are they saying that how jurisdiction is determined may change over time?

This is mostly just a question of clarity- is the question being asked here that if a law that is created in which the constitution does not have an answer for, should it be considered legitimate?

This seems like a crucial sentence that is being asked even today. This case seemed to have established crucial legitimization on the reach and powers of the Supreme Court, but what did it do in regards to establishing the power of the Constitution?

Throughout class so far, a lot of discussions have been about interpretation of the constitution. There are various styles to achieving this, but the one we lack now is direct communication with the framers, obviously. So, in the case of this, Marshall is interpreting at a time when one of the founders is a sitting president, so why is the Supreme Court trying to interpret the words written of men who could offer their own intentions plainly?

Is this saying that once a Justice is appointed and confirmed, the President cannot revoke the office from the individual? Does that mean that power lies with Congress?

Doesn't the Constitution outline that the Justices serve for life? Why does this say five years?

I thought the Justices were appointed by the President but then had to be confirmed by the Senate. Was this second step an amendment added later?

I thought the whole point of this case was to review laws or precedents within the constitution and deem whether or not they were truly viable. Doesn't appellate jurisdiction become necessary then? A higher court overturning a lower courts decision?

I know that the peaceful transfer of power between one administration to another is a big deal in the United States and a coveted tradition. Does this case have anything to do with that precedent? Obviously this has to do with judgeship and not the presidency, but refusing to deliver the commissions in the last days of office certainly screams sore loser. So other than establishing judicial review within the courts maybe this case had other effects on the tradition of American politics?

From what I understand about this case. it vaguely reminds me of the case of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. I think it made it to the state supreme court and they ruled he was within his constitutional right to refuse service. Since they ruled here that they could not force him to deliver the commissions (even though he did violate the law) did this case have any affect on the ruling of the more current case? I know that it said in a previous module that they have to follow precedent set by previous cases.

How can a court's opinion change? When there are different people on the court would that maybe produce a different outcome? How would you be able to be sure that things are standard?

This whole phrase is just completely in one ear and out the other for me. Would anybody be able to explain what this means? It is just a fancy way for getting into the opinion on the case?

This is confusing to me because I don't understand how this is an opinion answered question. If something has gone wrong shouldn't there be a remedy owed?

I am confused on how the legislature fits into the court's original jurisdiction. Did the legislature have to approve each of the cases that the supreme court took? Why only for original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction as well? Does this still apply today?

When mentioning Mr. Marbury's commission, they state that he is given a five year term. Were judicial appointments not lifetime appointments within the early years of the court system? Was the term five years for each appointee?

When this is referring to a man considering himself "injured", does that mean that a remedy can only be given to cases in which someone was injured? Or is this a form of metaphorical speech?

Where does the issue writs of mandamus come from then if not the constitution? I thought that the way judicial courts act were all centered around the constitutional law. But the way this is worded, it appears that mandamus is not in reference to the constitution.

I am confused on what affirmative words are. What do they have to do with this case? If anything, shouldn't there need to be positive affirmation words towards the case? If it is only negative, then wouldn't that be the opposite of having no operation at all?

Does this simply suggest our government is laws and doesn't have much to do with the men that are supposed to uphold them? What legal right are they referring to?

At this point, Marshall has invoked the idea of and principle behind written constitutions generally about 5 times. I don't take issue with his argument, but is there a reason he acts as if the principle behind a constitution is so well understood but does not invoke specific examples from somewhere else? Did he think this was not helpful for a young United States in defining the scope of its own laws? Or did he not have a useful example of a written constitution from another nation to cite?

If the Court is only bound to issue a mandamus as an exercise or remedy provided the powers granted by its appellate jurisdiction, which it denied given the case was brought directly to the Court, then how did it take the case under original jurisdiction? Did Marshall have a different take on jurisdiction than Justice Chase a few decades later?

I'm curious as to how the writers of the Constitution had not considered that something similar could occur? Why did the writers not introduce some sort of specific method where one of the branches could declare an action of another unconstitutional?

Why would he not be if his position is upheld by the law as they mentioned previously? Why would he not be entitled to a remedy of the situation?

I think I'm lost at this point? I'm not entirely sure what point they are trying to make, and there are far too many large words in the previous paragraph for me to be able to make sense of what is happening in this section. I certainly feel lost.

Why do people in Delhi drink river water knowing that the end is polluted?

how many hours a week do you need to sleep? why

"We can die by it, if no live by love" is Donne professing to the reader that life without his lover is not worth it, similarly to Shakespeare's tragedy, "Romeo and Juliet." After this, Donne predicts the success of his poem saying he will be remembered for his "verse" or poems like this one. What does Donne's "prediction" say about him as a writer?

If John Donne knows that his love hasn't harmed anyone, why does he continue to question the reader about it? If he is being truthful, why ask?

Donne speaks directly to the reader, pleading them to let him love. Why is Donne so frustrated with the reader after only one line of the poem?

Intriguing.. I can see where the connection is possibly being made, that language and culture have an impact on our psyche? Language can focus our aspect on specific aspects of the world and influences perception and culture effects us developmentally.

It begs the questions.. How has the duality of German and Wundt's politics followed us in some guise ever since? Does it mean that traces of modern psychology are still white washed and catered towards one demographic?

Wasn't this topic of public health and safety already discussed? Is J. Breyer giving Layton the opportunity to explain the state's stance in further detail?

How many times have there been cases of violations to the Establishment Clause? Is there a precedent for what is and is not a violation?

What is the criteria specifically for deciding if a religiously-affiliated organization receives state funding? I think it's interesting and poignant that the justices have asked both attorneys for their definitions of church.

I looked up the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, but I am still unsure what it means and how it pertains to this case? I wish they would have elaborated more on it. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Doctrine deals with exceptions to mootness, however, I thought Justice Breyer said this case was not moot.

I am a little confused with Cortman's argument. If the court favors religion, then theres an Establishment Clause problem, but if the court attacks religion, then theres a Free Exercise Clause problem. How can these things be balanced out? When is it appropriate to accommodate religion? What are other examples of the court accommodating religion?

Does Lockey vs Davey involve the qustion of scholarship (of religious schools) provided from government money? Thats what I'm gathering but I'm not sure. Not familiar with the case but before I look it up I'm guessing it has to do with government funded school scholarships secular vs non secular?

What is the World Vision Brief? Is this apart of the amicus brief? Im confused and already not familiar about what exactly an amicus brief is.

So how is this measured? How is the court able to tell how "religious" a school is and does how "religious; they are determine the funding amount they receive?

Are states not obligated to protect churches from potential disasters? I get there's a separation of church and state, and maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the question, but is that Kagan's implication here?

The Missouri State constitutional provision has been brought up a few times, does this mean that the Supreme Court can make decision on state constitutions?

What is an amici? Is this a group of people or a set of rules/laws that Layton is referring to that establish that there is no clause violation?

How often does social media play a part into political bias? How are judges or trial members able to keep their rulings separate from the bias they're hearing in the news or headlines?

I understand the idea that public benefit from the government and religious states should not mix. Are there other examples of government coercion to public benefit you could provide as examples?

He doesn't really answer the justices question of how he doesn't see the other way of questioning as discrimination IN FAVOR of the church against other non religious people which I think is sort of telling and again why I think justice sotomayor is one of the dissenting judges. One question I have is whether or not there actually is anything in the constitution that protects discrimination in favor of religion? I always hear about it the other way around and I remember in one instance not long ago about a christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple based on the argument that it violates his ability to practice his religious beliefs. The court sided with him, which to me is discrimination in favor of "religious beliefs" that was ruled by the supreme courts as justified and constitutional.

Not sure if it's really a question necessarily, but I find it odd they are being so technical. I realize that they need to set a precedent and be able to justify their decisions and make sure it fits within the laws and everything, but they should be focusing on the merits of the case at hand, not coming up with every possible thing it could be compared to. Again it makes sense that they need to cross reference this type of information and those questions are worth answering but in this setting it somehow seems to me to be off topic.

I looked up the establishment clause and it is essentially a clause put within the fifth amendment that prohibits congress from establishing religion. To me it seems like funding a religion is a very good way to establish it so I'm not sure exactly what his point is here. Unless he is suggesting that all religious schools recieve the same public benefits/funding. And unfortunately I have a hard time believing that certain states would ever fund anything other than christianity if it was left to a state level decision.

Having no prior knowledge of the Establishment Clause, I believe I've been able to glean a little of what it might say from the course of listening to this case. The application of it seems to be broken into two halves of conditionality, "endorsement" and "entanglement." Does anyone on the thread have a definition of what these two conditions mean?

Do any of my fellow students know what Justice Kagan is referring to here? Is Cortman's "white light" perhaps a five-minute warning light, since we are reaching the 25-minute mark, and each party gets 30 minutes? Or perhaps it just means "it's time to wrap it up?"

I'm curious, in their attempts to, as Professor Roberts characterized it, "probe the strength of their legal arguments, implications and hypothetical effects," how often do Justices describe hypothetical situations? If there was a statistic on how many times, on average per case, a hypothetical was posed, how high or low do we think it would be?

Does anyone else think that when he says "they have a free right to exercise... most private organizations and religious organizations do so." leads to him invalidating his point, that what he's asking for, is money for a private religious space? To me it seems like he has directly stated the church can do what it wants because it's private, but wouldn't that exactly take away from his want of federal money?

Did I miss them getting to the point of there being no establishment clause here? If yes, can anyone point me to where that was? Or is the establishment clause just something I should know / will learn?

Question - Here he says it's done by the private party, and I'm assuming that he means the individual who's hypothetically praying on the playground, however if that individual is from the church/ going to the church after or before playing- doesn't that make the individual apart of the church?

Question - What is he referring to when he says 'the way the Court always has? What ways has the SCOTUS always separated secular function from its religious function?

This mention of Locke has been used numerous times throughout this conversation, and I have yet to understand where the meaning of this is being drawn from. Are they referring to something John Locke wrote? Is this the name of something or someone I may have missed?

This is a very good point that I feel like is ignored. I have to wonder why this was not expanded on further - both by Layton himself or one of the justices.

I wish this had been elaborated on more. What do these two cases mean, and how does citing them help?

This question by Justice Alito made me realize that each state may have its own definition of "church". If this is to be one of the deciding factors of this particular case, and a case of the same material opens up in a different state, would the Supreme Court use Trinity Lutheran v. Comer to decide in a similar manner? Or would they have to judge with no stare decisis because of the different terms within the different state constitutions?

My first question is a bit more overarching of the argument that is happening so far. Is this argument, that the division of religious versus secular property on the church grounds, a violation of the first amendment? More specifically, if every individual has the freedom of religion, why does it matter that this church playground must be secular? Are they telling Cortman that they can judge what happens on the churches own private property? Why does this affect whether the church can join a fundraiser or not?

Hi, I have a question about which rendering engine is used for this simulaiton video. Is blender being used? Same question goes for the video in the begining of this post. https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/drake-model-based-design-in-the-age-of-robotics-and-machine-learning-59938c985515. It looks like that the video in the beginning of the above post is rendered with blender.

est-ce qu'il serait envisageable d'intégrer des images ou des dessins de certaines plantes, aussi pour les rerendre visibles aux yeux du lecteur ?

est ce qu'on peut y voir une conquête du bas-côté ? cet espace où il y a encore une place de liberté.

Ça me fait penser aux figures des couples mobiles ou en cavales (Thelma et Louise, Bonny and Clide), est que cet amour aurait été différent si vous aviez appris à conduire au sens où savoir conduire c'est aussi pouvoir à tout moment prendre sa voiture pour s'en aller vers une autre direction ?

est-ce qu'on en sait plus sur l'aide de Sally pour Nabokov ?

si le livre de Weinman "n'avance pas", est-ce qu'on peut envisager de voir ce mouvement comme le destin de Sally sur la route ?

Véra est-elle une femme de plus sur le bas-côté ?

How can research help the poor? central Focus. Author examines five participatory research projects (research from the underside) and applies a criteria as to whether or not it is research that helps the poor?

How to evaluate research that appreciates power imbalances? Research by and with the social deprived...., Criteria laid forth>

Could you please clarify what you mean by drinking tea from the tea? I'm curious as to what he does not understand in terms of tea etiquette.

I thought that the idea that AAVE is a continuation of African dialect in America was a really interesting idea. I wonder if there are any grammatical rules that exist in both AAVE and other African languages.

Ethnographies of vulnerable communities - and be objective and protect informants

Purpose of study is to understand the goals of feminist liberation.

I have often wondered both questions, I know I always felt shame if I made a grammatical mistake and a teacher would point it out to the class. Also, am I problematic if I use SAE? Or is it more problematic to force my students to use SAE?

What is their definition of lesser educated? Is it people who do not hold a college degree? Anyone without a doctorate? Not finishing high school? What is their definition of education and lesser educated?

I want to question where we see this in other cultures, such as our own. Do we have practices that embrace this ideology? Is it in the same way or a similar way?

One stance to have is to be aware of Dickinson's metacognitive journey in most poems. So...what is D's overarching point about poetry as a craft, as a vehicle, as a way of being and knowing?

One question I have here is how do we teach this kind of concept in the classroom? Since we will be in high schools, how do we embrace this ideology when students may not even know how to engage with this kind of thing because they were not taught to do so prior to our class?

pedagogy, is that you?!

So is medium design negative by nature?

如果我想设置其他的vblock呢？例如http下init_worker 和upstream之类的。

I wonder if I'll be able to use this knowledge in my field placement this semester?

what's the meaning of object-oriented language

Is this what the authors meant when they said to make US and European psychologies self-consciously aware that they are at the center?

This is helping me with understanding some of my conundrum with the problems of not being able to replicate lab results of psychology experiments in the real world. Perhaps if more studies consider Morawski's consideration of reflexivity it can better help us with interpreting the results of our experimental studies?

Hmm.... what do the authors mean by "mak[ing] them self-consciously" aware that US and European Psychologies are at the center of their account of history? Would it be an attempt at drawing attention to why they become the center?

• Need more understanding on this

Begs the question: why stagnant? and what do we mean by stagnant? like swamp water? These kinds of water are often the most full of life:turtles, single celled creatures, salamanders, leeches...

What kind of social media do you use?

Whats the difference?

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @APADivision38: Q1. What is a health disparity or health inequity? Who is affected by them the most? #healthpsychchat https://t.co/T0z…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 7 June 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1399732821195845636

What is this used for?

What are some potential arguments against this phenomenological pessimism about sex?

Do you have any information about when your ancestors arrived in America? Can you trace your people this far back?

这里的真是ip是什么?tcp的ip?

能禁止吗?

I would actually lean towards making this a comment, at least the typo fix part. But if you remove the typo fix part, all that's left is "should work", which I guess should be a comment too since it's too short to be an answer.

但我实际上还是成功的建立了tcp链接吧,只是delay了content_by_lua_file的调用而已

连接数和请求数的区别是什么...

?

why donot?

为什么嘞?

syntax source

为什么?假设我的一个请求只有1k buffer_size 10k max_body_size 100k 这两值不等 难道还不存不了了?

Agarwal, A. (2021). COVID19 Stress Scale—Nepali Version. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/374hx

Because of of the responses that this got, this makes for a great example of people's inability to get the question right before trying to get the answer right.

What does this output mean?

should this be inside the bracket??

hmm sure starting states can have an impact?

Special Track 3. (n.d.). Data for Policy CIC. Retrieved 8 March 2021, from https://dataforpolicy.org/data-fof-policy-2021/special-track-3/

Is this the first or second DSI? Did one happen in 2020?

QUESTION: What exactly does nix-shell execute from the Nix expression (i.e., shell.nix, default.nix, etc.)?

ANSWER: Based on my current understanding, the answer is everything. It calls $stdenv/setup (see annotation below) to set up the most basic environment variables (TODO: expand on this), and "injects" the most common tools (e.g., gcc, sed) into it.

It also defines the phases (TODO: verify this) and builder functions, such as genericBuilder. For example, the default builder is just two lines:

source $stdenv/setup
genericBuild

TODO: pkgs/stdenv/generic/builder.sh is a mystery though.

QUESTION: Once dropping into nix-shell, how do I know what phases to execute by looking at a default.nix? (E.g., [..]freeswitch/default.nix)

ANSWER: As far as I can tell, one can override the phases in their Nix build expression (to build the derivation, see at the bottom), but they won't get executed as only the $stdenv/setup (see above) will get sourced, and no builders are called that, in return, invoke the phases (again, see above).

So if one is using nix-shell

• to create/hack on a package, the person has to manually invoke the builder or phases (TODO: still fuzzy on this subject)

• to set up an environment, then one doesn't even have to worry about builders/phases because we just use nix-shell to clear the environment and to inject tools that we need for a given task

QUESTION: When dropping into nix-shell, is this Nix expression (i.e., freeswitch/default.nix) executed? Or just parts of it?

ANSWER: As stated above, all of the input Nix expression is evaluated, but no builders and build phases are called; although, nothing prevents one to override the phases, in case they are creating/hacking on a package.

QUESTION:

The command nix-shell will build the dependencies of the specified derivation, but not the derivation itself.

What is the "derivation" here exactly? I know that it is a build expression, but does that mean the default.nix (or other Nix expression) nix-shell is invoked with?

^{This statement also seems like a contradiction with how `nix-shell` works (i.e., if one issues `nix-shell -p curl`, then `curl` will be available in that sub-shell), but `-p` acts like a shortcut to as if `curl` had been listed in `buildInputs` so this is not the case.}

ANSWER: I have the feeling my confusion comes from the fact that the term "derivation" is used ambiguously in the manuals, sometimes to mean multiple things (see list below).

TODO: Substantiate this claim, and make sure that it not coming from my misunderstanding certain topics.

• Nix build expression (such as default.nix) whose output is going to become the store derivation itself (see last item at the bottom about the Nix manual's glossary definition)

• store derivation.

Had multiple cracks at unambiguously define what a derivation is, and here's a list of these:

• What is the purpose of nix-instantiate? What is a store-derivation? (probably the best try yet)

• What is a Nix expression in regard to Nix package management? (feels sloppier, but commenter mentions ATerm, adding the possibility of making it very specific)

• Closure vs derivation in the Nix package manager (very short, and will have to be re-written, but adds closures to the mix)

• There is now a glossary definition of a derivation in the Nix manual; see this annotation why I find it problematic

QUESTION: What is the difference between nix-shell -p and nix-shell invoked with a Nix expression of mkShell (or other that achieves the similar effect)?

QUESTION: nix-shell does not create a sub-shell, so what does it do? (clarification: so nix-shell indeed does it; I confused it with nix shell)

Now define this? Does elearning mean strictly online? Does it mean with technology (like apps)?

Is this notion -- that "reading is also a discourse act" -- new or novel to you?

[[discrete probability distribution]] in contrast to [[continuous distribution]] by the number of outcomes : [[discrete probability distribution]] only have finite number of possible outcomes??????

If this was a sign of luxury and power, eating lying down is very uncomfortable, so if it was uncomfortable, why would it still be a luxury?

How does it detect that it's being run non-interactively as part of a script?

Is that distinct/different from detecting whether the command is being piped?

Can't expect / unbuffer / etc. (whatever this is attempting to contrast itself with) be easily invoked directly from shell prompt or script too??

Okay, I guess you have to know more about how expect is invoked to understand what they mean. One glance at the examples, comparing them, and all becomes clear:

#!/bin/sh
empty -f -i in -o out telnet foo.bar.com
empty -w -i out -o in "ogin:" "luser\n"

I didn't realize that expect required/expected (no pun intended) to be used in scripts with its own shebang line:

#!/usr/bin/expect

spawn telnet foo.bar.com 
expect ogin {send luser\r}

That does make it less easy/normal to use expect within a shell script.

I was coming to the expect project from/for the unbuffer command, which by contrast, is quite easy to include/use in a shell script -- almost the same as empty, in fact. (Seems like almost a mismatch to have unbuffer command in expect toolkit then. Or is expect command the only odd one out in that toolkit?)

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/183284/factory-funner/versions

And now there are two versions with the nickname "Second edition": 2018 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/404596/second-edition 2021 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/556765/second-edition

and a 3rd edition published prior to the current/new 2nd edition: 2019 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/486693/third-edition

Confusing all around.

But I think the bottom line is that the 2021 version is in fact the same game and the newest rules tweaks:

1. Added a sixth player
2. Official variant to play without the quick grab element.

What does the (dashed) arrow for fork() mean? Why does it point that way? Which one is a fork of / has forked which one?

Only answered:

• who maintains
• what the license is

Berman is using the specialized theories of linguistic anthropology to analyze life in Jajikon. How do these theories take us deeper into the worldview of her hosts? Or perhaps do we not need all this scientific mumbojumbo to understand how people avoid giving?

Are there other Pacific peoples who use indirect speaking because they believe direct speech is dangerous? Can you think of examples of indirect speech here in Hawai‘i or other Pacific places which connect them with Micronesia?

These two sentences begin a story that will span the entire chapter. Using what you know about the rhetoric of ethnography, please tell me how Berman uses immediate and distanced narratives, as well as confessional and realistic styles, in order to tell her story across this whole chapter?

Goodness. Can someone explain what this passage means to me? It seems to be central to her argument in this book, but lines like "If actions lead to power as opposed to the other way around" seem very difficult to understand. What does this sentence means? Can you explain it, or do you need help understanding it? I guess this is a request for a comprehension check.

Dvorak taught us to think carefully about images. What is up with Berman's decision to pixelate out people's faces? What did you think of that?

I am curious to know what people think about this case of adoption. Berman seems to show a situation. We tend to be pro-Pacific Island culture and pro-human rights, but in this case, it seems a woman's right to raise her child is in tension with a cultural system where the elderly have power and the young must submit. What were your reactions to this passage? Am I mischaracterizing it?

That's a tough one. I can see it both ways.

in the case of

briefly mentioning a subject but not going into it in detail the topic/subject need not be related at all (it sounds like).

What about in the case fo:

is defined as going off in a different direction. Does the fact that it's going off in a different direction imply that it at least starts out connected/related to the original (starting point) subject (as it does in the geometry sense of tangential)? Or does it permit "jumping" to another topic (in another direction) without being related/connected at all??

I don't think I like this definition very much. It doesn't quite fit the sense I'm trying to use it for in my tag:

tangentially related content (aside)

Ah, here's a definition that matches what I thought it meant (one of the senses anyway): https://hyp.is/3Bn2bpZ7Eeu3Ok8vg03AVA/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangential

We know from Hau‘ofa that islanders are mobile. But given the fact that Monty includes Maui and a Scottish missionary are feature characters in the book, and also given the fact that he now includes in his ethnography the Tannaese diaspore in Port Vila, what is the topic of Monty's book? Tanna? Samaria? Islanders? Something else?

Monty seems to believe that tourism is a pretty good deal for Tanna. Given what we know about tourism in Hawai‘i (and perhaps other places you'd like to share about), do you agree or disagree with him? And why?

Monty seems to be making an argument here that anthropologists and islanders are very similar. What is his argument here and do you agree with it?

not necessarily incompatible in all senses.

so is this only a concern/possibility when the word in question is a polyseme?

but there is nothing preventing the queen from being a mother

The meaning of the "incompatibility" relation seems really ambiguous. What does that mean precisely?

And how would we know for sure if an incompatibility (such as a peach is not a plum) or lack of incompatibility (a queen can be a mother and a mother can be a queen) is a sufficient condition to cause it to be or not be a co-hyponym?

Oh. I guess it says

Co-hyponyms are often but not always related to one another by the relation of incompatibility.

so it actually can't ever be used to prove or disprove (sufficient/necessary condition) that something is a co-hyponym. So that observation, while interesting, is not helpful in a practical / deterministic way...

So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):

• "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
• "An X is a kind/type of Y".

Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.

Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.

What's the connection between a series and the function?

-- because of the phrase: "the Taylor series of a ... function "

What, then, is the difference between a semantic domain and a semantic field? The way they are used here, it's almost as if they are listing them in order to emphasis that they are synonyms ... but I'm not sure.

From the later examples of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, however, I am pretty certain that semantic domain is quite different from (broader than) semantic field.

(Not answered on this stub article)

What, precisely, is the distinction/difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? At the very least, you would say that they are themselves both very much within the same semantic field.

So, is a semantic class distinct from a semantic field in that semantic class is a more well-defined/clear-cut semantic field? And a semantic field is a more fluid, nebulous, not well-defined field (in the same sense as a magnetic field, which has no distinct boundary whatsoever, only a decay as you move further away from its source) ("semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other")?

If so, could you even say that a semantic class is a kind of (hyponym) of semantic field?

Maybe I should pose this question on a semantics forum.