canonical version/location: Probably https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4458696/finding-out-what-characters-a-given-font-supports

superseded by: https://hyp.is/Z1f9kFuaEe2eHAdj5fbY2Q/stackoverflow.com/questions/4458696/finding-out-what-characters-a-given-font-supports

"Specifically, when one of my classmates stated how he was struggling with the concept and another one of my classmates took the initiative to clarify it, I realized that that individual possibilities vary greatly among students."

Good move. Rather than having 2 different methods, and requiring people to "go out of their way" to "opt in" to using chunks by using the longer-named javascript_packs_with_chunks_tag, they changed it to just use chunks by default, out of the box.

Now they don't need 2 similar but separate methods that do nearly the same, which makes things simpler and easier to understand (no longer have to stop and ask oneself, which one should I use? what's the difference?).

You can't get it "wrong" now because there's only one option.

And by switching that method to use the shorter name, it makes it clearer that that is the usual/common/recommended way to go.

I'd say the author's updated version is canonical: https://hyp.is/2lzvXK4sEeu3s1Piywmzww/www.hteumeuleu.com/2016/using-flexbox-in-an-email/

See: https://hyp.is/Pdjz1JyIEeuGQYNxD7Ra4w/git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git

Was trying to figure out where the canonical repo even is. Hard to figure out. Could be made clearer (like a prominent notice on one saying this is an unofficial clone with a link to the canonical source).

Ended up here via link from https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/86879/suppress-rsync-warning-some-files-vanished-before-they-could-be-transferred to https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=blob_plain;f=support/rsync-no-vanished;hb=HEAD

But then found https://github.com/WayneD/rsync, which I now believe to be canonical based on:

• last change here is Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:35:39 -0700 (09:35 -0700) but on https://github.com/WayneD/rsync it was April 3.
• https://rsync.samba.org/bug-tracking.html links to: create an issue on GitHub

Sheridan looks for a definition of language that holds weight across multiple types of humans and cultural techniques (people who are deaf, mimes, the literate). Is he then perhaps exploring the question "which languages?" instead of "what is language?"

And what of those who cannot see/sense writing in the same way they sense speech? What cut is she making here in ability?

Another apparatus (printing) which greatly opens up our understanding of the world and our access to others, allowing us to ask the question "which one?"

This synopsis of Cavendish's accolades sounds similar in many ways to Christine de Pizan's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan

Putting into play another sort of story, a la Le Guin

Another set of cuts here (and with the "person, familiarized to superior beauties").

Those who have limited exposure to observe or practice (and thereby to increase refinement of taste) are in another category altogether.

Who is cut off by the inability to increase taste and whose voices are silenced?

And who/what determines those states? Where are the cuts made between the two?

Hm, okay. So what I took (above) as comments on humanity, Locke is saying are comments on language. (Or is it both?)

I already have a problem.

Is sensation a universal phenomenon? If so, that doesn't mean that human's experience sensations in the same way and therefore the ideas generated from those sensations would naturally vary.

The desire for "universal" anything seems fraught with problem, even for seemingly "simple" ideas.

Incomplete or inaccurate according to whom? Some objective Truth?

Cf. Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman, written about 100 years later, making a similar argument. Specifically, Wollstonecraft argues that women are not naturally inferior or frivolous but have been bred that way through poor education. Taken in comparison to the Enlightenment's exploration of human nature and with a lack of significant progress between 1687 and 1792 (outside of literacy, noted below), it seems clear that "human nature" really means "man's nature."

Which "fundaments"? What foundations are the ones that "all people" start with?

Cf. Le Guin's hero-killer story

What other stories were lost under this focus?

And who, precisely, does he count as "one another"?

Doreen Massey has an interesting book that touches on this (Space, Place, and Gender), where she points out that time and space are treated as binaries, where time is typically masculine and dynamic and space is feminine and static. Nature (gendered feminine) is spatial, a place, and therefore not a time ("ahistorical and timeless"). Culture, on the other hand, is temporal, dynamic, masculine. It's a very particular rhetoric which begs the "which one?" question.

(While Massey points out this common way of conceiving of time/space and binaries in general [A vs. Not A], she argues that the concept of space needs to be defined on its own merit, distinct from its binary opposite.)

Why does Kirby reject the notion of Nature as container? Is she posing containers as inert objects, 'mere' holders? Cf. Le Guin's notion of the container as another type of story.

an objective set for the Sprint that can be met through the implementation of Product Backlog. It provides guidance to the Development Team on why it is building the Increment. It is created during the Sprint Planning meeting. The Sprint Goal gives the Development Team some flexibility regarding the functionality implemented within the Sprint. The selected Product Backlog items deliver one coherent function, which can be the Sprint Goal. The Sprint Goal can be any other coherence that causes the Development Team to work together rather than on separate initiatives.