Dejavu Sans Mono Nerd (version 3.2) does not respect Font Awesome 4 
<!-- ⚠️ !!!
If you are unsure what you are reporting is an issue or
it's a general question please go to the gitter chat instead: https://gitter.im/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts
⚠️ !!! -->


<!-- ⚠️ !!! Issues not filled out with the template will be closed straight away and will only be responded to once filled properly ⚠️ !!! -->
<!-- By posting an issue you acknowledge the following: -->

- [x] I have searched the [issues](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/issues) for my issue and found nothing related and/or helpful
- [x] I have searched the [FAQ](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/wiki/FAQ-and-Troubleshooting) for help
- [x] I have searched the [Wiki](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/wiki) for help


#### 🎯 Subject of the issue

Experienced behavior:
Font Awesome glyphs are rendered inconsistently after upgrading my `ttf-dejavu-nerd` from version `3.1` to version `3.2`. As far as I can tell, all font awesome fonts are affected, but I will use the `nf-fa-eye_slash` (codepoint f070) to illustrate the issue. 

If I use `nf-fa-eye_slash` in my terminal prompt, the glyph rendered on the prompt and the glyph I see inside my text editor (neovim) are different. 

In the terminal prompt, the latest font awesome glyph is used:
![20240405_17h22m02s_grim](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/assets/69449791/79e3ba60-c44c-47bb-8f28-6f200695e640)

Inside Neovim, the Font Awesome 4 version of the glyph (the desired one) is used:
![20240405_17h23m18s_grim](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/assets/69449791/8d77b90b-e0c6-46ee-b967-5741a130a039)

Another inconsistent behavior is the fact that different versions of the glyphs are rendered if I copied and paste it on the terminal:

https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/assets/69449791/7b9e7fe7-13be-44dc-a3d1-2fd96f494076

The updated version of the FA glyphs are also used in the output of `lsd` even though the glyphs inside `lsd`'s configuration file are stilled rendered using the Font Awesome 4 glyphs. 

![20240405_17h38m56s_grim](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts/assets/69449791/fc582496-e109-4a78-9d7b-2df9f8a56a28)

I should mention that I have [Font Awesome 4](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-font-awesome-4) installed along side `ttf-dejavu-nerd`. I have also have the following lines inside my alacritty config:
```toml
[font]
normal.family      = 'DejaVuSansMono'
bold.family        = 'DejaVuSansMono'
italic.family      = 'DejaVuSansMono'
bold_italic.family = 'DejaVuSansMono'
size               = 13
```
The reason I'm not using the latest Font Awesome is because I simply prefer how the glyphs look in Font Awesome 4. My guess is that `ttf-devaju-nerd` has the latest Font Awesome glyphs baked into it. But what I don't understand is the inconsistency in the rendering of the glyphs. Why are the Font Awesome 4 glyphs used in certain cases (e.g: inside Neovim and when copy and pasting the glyphs) but not in other cases (like in the output of `lsd` or the terminal prompt) even though the glyphs are rendered by the same terminal emulator? If I have Font Awesome 4 installed alongside `ttf-dejavu-nerd`, shouldn't the Font Awesome 4 glyphs be used in all cases?

The issue goes away after downgrading the `ttf-dejavu-nerd` package back to `3.1` 

#### 🔧 Your Setup

- _Which font are you using (e.g. `Anonymice Powerline Nerd Font Complete.ttf`)?_
   - `DejaVuSansMNerdFont-Bold.ttf`
   - `DejaVuSansMNerdFont-Regular`
   - `DejaVuSansMNerdFont-Oblique`
   - `DejaVuSansMNerdFont-BoldOblique.ttf`
   - `fontawesome-webfont.ttf`
- _Where did you get the file from (download link, self patched, source downloaded from link...)_
   - Arch Linux official [repo](https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/ttf-dejavu-nerd/) for Dejavu Sans Mono Nerd
   - [Arch User Repository](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-font-awesome-4) for Font Awesome 4
- _Which terminal emulator are you using (e.g. `iterm2`, `urxvt`, `gnome`, `konsole`)?_
   - `alacritty`
- _Are you using OS X, Linux or Windows? And which specific version or distribution?_
   - Arch Linux