https://lemmy.ml/c/ManufacturingConsent

The urge to leave began with the idea of cricket song. Dex couldn’t pinpoint where the affinity had come from. Maybe it’d been a movie they watched, or a museum exhibit. Some multimedia art show that sprinkled in nature sounds, perhaps. They’d never lived anywhere with cricket song, yet once they registered its absence in the City’s soundscape, it couldn’t be ignored. They noted it while they tended the Meadow Den Monastery’s rooftop garden, as was their vocation. It’d be nicer here if there were some crickets, they thought as they raked and weeded. Oh, there were plenty of bugs—butterflies and spiders and beetles galore, all happy little synanthropes whose ancestors had decided the City was preferable to the chaotic fields beyond its border walls. But none of these creatures chirped. None of them sang. They were city bugs and therefore, by Dex’s estimation, inadequate.

This is from the first page of A Psalm For The Wild Built by Becky Chambers. Your post reminded me of it, you may enjoy reading it.

There’s enough evidence that Trump doesn’t pay his bills to question whether that paycheck would actually materialise

I just thought of something, is it on a specific rootstock? Was there a label with the cherries that mentioned it?

Colt rootstock should fruit once around 12-15ft and Gisela around 9.5 - 12ft, so if not this year then hopefully next you’ll start getting some fruits. However, if you’ve got a Malling, Mazard or Maheleb you’ll have a long wait still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_tree_propagation#Cherry_rootstocks

I’ve never grown cherries but I grow other things and they tend to love slow release nutrients.

I’m sure they’d be very happy if you give them an inch or two layer of compost around their base, and may reward you with a bountiful harvest next year in return.

No need to dig it in or anything. Nature will do her thing, with worms and such. Just dump and spread around.

In a way, isn’t every farm a worm farm?

You might enjoy LibreOffice after changing to a different UI, here’s how:

Select a preferred user interface variant as follows:

Open a LibreOffice module to change the user interface.

Go to View > User Interface on the Menu bar to open the Select Your Preferred User Interface dialog (Figure 12).

Select the preferred user interface from the options available in UI variants. A preview of the selected user interface is displayed in the dialog.

To use the selected user interface for all LibreOffice modules, click on Apply to All.

To only use the selected user interface for the LibreOffice module that is open, click on Apply to {Module}, for example Apply to Writer.

Click on Close to close the dialog.

https://books.libreoffice.org/en/GS252/GS25213-CustomizingLO.html#toc34

LibreOffice has multiple UIs to choose from and allows a huge amount of customisation, what are you on about? Did you last use it 10 years ago or something?

No. It’s the user’s responsibility to look at hyperlinks before clicking them and determine whether it’s safe to do so.

As in: you’ve gotta remember that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know…

Similarly:

Is that some ollas I see?

Isn’t it closed source and serves ads?

Lemmy.world admins: “this is a direct threat to me personally”

I believe the proper nomenclature is lobbied. Therefore it’s legal and okay. Definitely not just another word for bribery and corruption, no no no.

Don’t look inside that brown envelope under the table!

The term is used to describe detention in prison for an indefinite length of time;[3] a judge may rule that a person be “detained at His Majesty’s pleasure” for serious offences or based on a successful insanity defence.[4] This is sometimes used where there is a great risk of re-offending. However, it is most often used for juvenile offenders, usually as a substitute for life sentencing (which might be much longer for youthful offenders). For example, section 259 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (which applies to England and Wales) states, “where […] a person convicted of murder, or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment, and the person appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed. The court must sentence the offender to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”[5]

Prisoners held at His Majesty’s pleasure are periodically reviewed to determine whether their sentence can be deemed complete; although this power traditionally rested with the monarch, such reviews are now made in the name of the monarch, on the advice of government officials — the Secretary of State for Justice in England and Wales, for instance. Minimum terms are also set, before which the prisoner cannot be released; in England and Wales, these were originally set by the Home Secretary, but, since 30 November 2000, have been set by the trial judge.[6] Prisoners’ sentences are typically deemed to be complete when the reviewing body is “satisfied that there has been a significant change in the offender’s attitude and behaviour”.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_His_Majesty's_pleasure#In_penal_law

It’s specifically not life in prison because minors aren’t fully responsible for themselves and life from the age of 10 and life from the age of, for example, 55 are completely different things.

Ah, I see the confusion. I’m used to the modern critical definition, not the original.

Exceptionalism as “exemptionalism”

During the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context.[104] Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being “above” or an “exception” to the law, specifically the law of nations.[105] (That phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.) Critics argued that American exceptionalism was increasingly used to justify foreign policy decisions that placed the United States “above international law.” This perspective claimed that the U.S. invoked exceptionalism not as a model of global leadership but as a rationale for unilateralism and selective application of legal norms.[106]

The new use of the term has served to confuse the topic and muddy the waters since its unilateralist emphasis and the actual orientation diverge somewhat from prior uses of the phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism