I was wrong, just remembered incorrectly.

Signal is not open source.

The modern Christian God is mostly a passive observer, whenever him or his agents have visited us there have been tons of miracles and magical shit, but that does not happen very often, and we’ve been basically alone for millenia while He is busy in his own realm. If Christ visited again, it would likely portend the end of the world, at least in a lot of Christian world views.

As other comments have pointed out, and you already mentioned this as a possibility, this is how I would write it:

(defun eat-more ()
  "Open a new terminal."
  (interactive)
  (eat nil t))

However, given your goal of understanding commands and the buffer list better, I’ll try to explain a little better.

The first parameter, the shell, when left nil, will use your default eat-shell, so the funcall in your current implementation is redundant. The eat-shell can be customized separately if necessary.

The <3> or <5> or whatever suffix in the eat buffer name is actually not generated by eat itself, eat is using generate-new-buffer, which is an Emacs built-in function that relies on the C function generate-new-buffer-name.

So what you are attempting to do is not just re-implement a feature eat already has, but a core function within Emacs itself. If you don’t rely on built-in functionality, I would argue that you are not familiarizing yourself with elisp development, you are really creating your own language.

However, re-implementing what eat does can maybe be a good exercise, so to use the built-in function to help us, I would probably write it like something like this:

(defun eat-more ()
  "Open a new terminal."
  (interactive)
  (require 'eat)
  (eat
   nil
   (let ((name (generate-new-buffer-name eat-buffer-name)))
     (when (string-match "<\\([[:digit:]]+\\)>" name)
       (string-to-number (match-string 1 name))))))

One thing I’d like to draw attention to is the use of the variable eat-buffer-name, which is defined by eat and is customizable, so even though most people are using the default name "*eat*", this could be different for some users. However, using this variable means we need to ‘require’ the eat package first. In the simpler answer, we were relying on the fact that the (eat ...) command is autoloaded, and can be called without requiring the package first. But that isn’t true for the eat-buffer-name variable.

What, did the simulator get assembled by a passing tornado? Everyone who believes in simulation theory thinks this reality was designed, constructed, usually by someone that looks like us. That’s pretty damn close to Christianity.

Belief in a simulation implies intelligent design of some sort, so this is, in my opinion, just a 21st century way of asking the age old question, does God exist?

It is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating even if those comments occurred in a criminal proceeding. It is OK for an employer to look at court documents and come to a different conclusion than the jury because they are allowed to consider more context. In other words, avoiding criminal liability does not protect you from all forms of justice or consequences for your actions. Citizens absolutely should consider as much context as they can when trying to decide whether to act against their leaders.

This is not true!!! unless in the very specific context of a criminal court proceeding. In every other context, refusal to answer a question can be used as evidence against you. For a government job application, divorce/civil proceedings, and any other conversation happening outside of a court, it is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating. In some cases you can even force a defendant to answer questions if they enjoy some kind of immunity, and hold them in contempt otherwise.

I know it can be hard to see because it is positive attention, and can give you a sense of gender euphoria, but they absolutely are fetishizing you, and it’s not healthy to engage with it.

Every one of those openers is a giant red flag for me. They are reducing you to only your sexual characteristics. If they are making your trans status the number one reason to meet you, you are not going to be looking at a long term scenario. They see you as exotic and novel, not as a full person.

Yes, by definition chasers are deceptive. And I’m not saying every man she’s matched with so far is deceptive, but posting that information publicly is known to make a large percentage of matches behave that way.

I’m sorry, I’m not a man, but I do know the answer to your question. Disclosing your trans status in a dating profile is guaranteed to attract chasers. Once they realized you wanted a relationship and not just sex, they probably lost interest. I can almost guarantee it’s not your fault, there’s just a lot of gross men. You are a woman, it’s not a lie. Disclose your trans status before meeting, but try to get to know them better first and get a sense of how they might react. You won’t always get it right, and some men may respond badly, and you’ll have to block them immediately. This is how I eventually found my husband.

Another option is to use a queer dating app and specifically look for t4t relationships. There are a lot of cute trans guys out there.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You literally just had to put a mark on a piece of paper. There’s zero obligation afterwards. You could have voted for Harris and denounced her stance on Israel at the exact same time. So many people did just that. Nobody was asking you to sell your humanity.

A large portion of Republicans, including the GHF, believe that war in Israel will bring about the end of days and they will be raptured. There was a clear choice to be made. There were lives on the line. You yourself acknowledged Trump offered a ‘bit faster genocide’. Now religious extremists are actively engaged, on the ground, in genocide while carrying an American flag. Because of the election. Because of your choice.

Things have materially deteriorated in Gaza directly because of the election. The Christian Republican org GHF, created in February, is engaged in forced relocations and massacres. Bibi would not have cut off all aid to Gaza in March without Republicans blessing and support. Things would be bad, but there are some policy differences regarding Israel between the parties. These were very very clear if you watched or read about the convention speeches. Harris acknowledged the genocide and said her goal was for Palestinians to have self determination. Trump said a bunch of unhinged shit. But his policy has always been pro genocide.

Yeah, this is kinda ridiculous. If electing Harris would have saved a single Palestinian life, it would’ve been the correct choice.

Once again, here we are though, in a paradise of your own creation. Isn’t it great? Aren’t you happy with the state of things? Fascism is in full bloom, access to the polls is shrinking, genocide has sped up. Socialism must be right around the corner, right? Looks like your vote against Harris is going to save the world after all.

Lol yeah voting for Harris was the accelerationist choice. What planet are you on??