Maybe you can try to fix your issue by forcing the buffer-undo-list variable to nil for the elisp mode, as follow: (add-hook 'elisp-mode (lambda () (setq-local buffer-undo-list nil)))

I tried it but still no joy…

Looking at this issue I noticed 3 things that may help to pinpoint the origin…:

• I have 2 variables set that affect the scratch buffer in my config (without yours, that it’s the 3rd):

                  (setq initial-major-mode 'org-mode)
                  (setq-default major-mode 'org-mode)

• Before this reply, (setq-default major-mode 'org-mode) was (setq default-major-mode 'org-mode). Both expressions seems indistinguishable in the resulted behavior.
• The scratch buffer starts in org-roam mode (and read-only mode), which is very strange, but can obviously be related and/or part of the problem. The org-roam section (my config is literate in org-mode) comes before this variables being set.

What does this info may imply?

Hello Sunoc.

• the buffer is not in read-only, but it always start as so.
• the keybinding is ok since it works in all the rest of the buffers.
• Upon calling undo, emacs says “no undo information in this buffer” (searching for this didn’t seem to give relevant information except something from 2006 and then something about specific of a table-spreadsheet that I don’t use).

From this and @ouigol@beehaw.org (I will relpy after this one) it looks that it may be my configuration, since I’m using vanilla emacs with my own configuration.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your time! :)

Happily, I know no one who uses Imessage. :)

Unbelievable… Those that are responsible for this are throwing it to their children and grandchildren…

They could at least put them to use in Earthships.

I still cannot imagine how can anyone happily burden is own children (and it’s children, and it’s children, and it’s children, and all of our children too, up to many many generations) with is own harmful waste.

Also, there is the simple fact of neglecting the opportunity cost: given the amount of labor and money that any of those plants imply, would you invest it into more non renewable, fossil based, highly concentrated sources of energies, or cleaner, diversified, decentralized and renewable ones? In other words, we can ask ourselves this simple question: which of these options will make the world better for our children?

I found strange how costs and deaths for nuclear were counted. For example, the cost of lost lands due to radioactive contamination for many years, abandoned cities, suffering and life impacting cancer or other illnesses in survivors is not included. Only direct deaths are included.

Also, transgenerational tyranny is not included in that comparison.

Do we have the right to leave future generations with our radioactiva waste? Personally, I don’t think so, specially since we are comparing a non renewable and concentrated (and so, with incredible upfront costs that force us to keep them for many years and render conditions to those that have that capital) source of energy versus a distributed, renewable and quickly evolving one…

Just some thoughts to spark a healthy and respectful discussion. :)

Best…

deleted by creator