Tootfinder

Hmmmm… here is a problem I did not anticipate.
Every time I empty the main pond hole of water, (the actual hole under the liner) water returns within an hour or two. I’ve done it 4 times now, and it keeps filling back up with water.
Obviously there is water underground infiltrating into the pond hole, and/or the water table itself is above the bottom of the hole. It is not coming from either of the other holes because they both have the same amount of water in them as they did this morning.
I have “watered” the blueberry patch and hazelnut tree a lot with the water that I have been cleaning the filter with… and we also had lots of water flying around outside the liners yesterday as I tested the pump. So it is quite possible that the ground around the pond is simply well saturated.
I think I am going to have to just keep removing the water (and putting it into the sewer) until it does not refill. We have a week of hot weather coming. Surely that will be enough time for everything to dry out completely.
Otherwise I might run into some issues if the rains return before I can anchor down the pond liner with gravel and get the plumbing in!
How is time already running short!?
Never underestimate the ability of water to find a place where it is not wanted. 😆
#poolpond #backyardProject #diy

So I've found my answer after maybe ~30 minutes of effort. First stop was the first search result on Startpage (https://millennialhawk.com/does-poop-have-calories/), which has some evidence of maybe-AI authorship but which is better than a lot of slop. It actually has real links & cites research, so I'll start by looking at the sources.
It claims near the top that poop contains 4.91 kcal per gram (note: 1 kcal = 1 Calorie = 1000 calories, which fact I could find/do trust despite the slop in that search). Now obviously, without a range or mention of an average, this isn't the whole picture, but maybe it's an average to start from? However, the citation link is to a study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32235930/) which only included 27 people with impaired glucose tolerance and obesity. Might have the cited stat, but it's definitely not a broadly representative one if this is the source. The public abstract does not include the stat cited, and I don't want to pay for the article. I happen to be affiliated with a university library, so I could see if I have access that way, but it's a pain to do and not worth it for this study that I know is too specific. Also most people wouldn't have access that way.
Side note: this doing-the-research protect has the nice benefit of letting you see lots of cool stuff you wouldn't have otherwise. The abstract of this study is pretty cool and I learned a bit about gut microbiome changes from just reading the abstract.
My next move was to look among citations in this article to see if I could find something about calorie content of poop specifically. Luckily the article page had indicators for which citations were free to access. I ended up reading/skimming 2 more articles (a few more interesting facts about gut microbiomes were learned) before finding this article whose introduction has what I'm looking for: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3127503/
Here's the relevant paragraph:
"""
The alteration of the energy-balance equation, which is defined by the equilibrium of energy intake and energy expenditure (1–5), leads to weight gain. One less-extensively-studied component of the energy-balance equation is energy loss in stools and urine. Previous studies of healthy adults showed that ≈5% of ingested calories were lost in stools and urine (6). Individuals who consume high-fiber diets exhibit a higher fecal energy loss than individuals who consume low-fiber diets with an equivalent energy content (7, 8). Webb and Annis (9) studied stool energy loss in 4 lean and 4 obese individuals and showed a tendency to lower the fecal energy excretion in obese compared with lean study participants.
"""
And there's a good-enough answer if we do some math, along with links to more in-depth reading if we want them. A Mayo clinic calorie calculator suggests about 2250 Calories per day for me to maintain my weight, I think there's probably a lot of variation in that number, but 5% of that would be very roughly 100 Calories lost in poop per day, so maybe an extremely rough estimate for a range of humans might be 50-200 Calories per day. Interestingly, one of the AI slop pages I found asserted (without citation) 100-200 Calories per day, which kinda checks out. I had no way to trust that number though, and as we saw with the provenance of the 4.91 kcal/gram, it might not be good provenance.
To double-check, I visited this link from the paragraph above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316622169853?via=ihub
It's only a 6-person study, but just the abstract has numbers: ~250 kcal/day pooped on a low-fiber diet vs. ~400 kcal/day pooped on a high-fiber diet. That's with intakes of ~2100 and ~2350 kcal respectively, which is close to the number from which I estimated 100 kcal above, so maybe the first estimate from just the 5% number was a bit low.
Glad those numbers were in the abstract, since the full text is paywalled... It's possible this study was also done on some atypical patient group...
Just to come full circle, let's look at that 4.91 kcal/gram number again. A search suggests 14-16 ounces of poop per day is typical, with at least two sources around 14 ounces, or ~400 grams. (AI slop was strong here too, with one including a completely made up table of "studies" that was summarized as 100-200 grams/day). If we believe 400 grams/day of poop, then 4.91 kcal/gram would be almost 2000 kcal/day, which is very clearly ludicrous! So that number was likely some unrelated statistic regurgitated by the AI. I found that number in at least 3 of the slop pages I waded through in my initial search.

Characterizing the roles of transitory obscured phases and inner torus in shaping the fractions of obscured AGN at cosmic noon
Alba V. Alonso-Tetilla, Francesco Shankar, Fabio Fontanot, Andrea Lapi, Milena Valentini, Annagrazia Puglisi, Nicola Menci, Hao Fu, Lumen Boco, Johannes Buchner, Michaela Hirschmann, Cristina Ramos Almeida, Carolin Villforth, Lizhi Xie
…

Characterizing the roles of transitory obscured phases and inner torus in shaping the fractions of obscured AGN at cosmic noon
The origin of obscuration in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is still a matter of contention. It is unclear whether obscured AGN are primarily due to line-of-sight effects, a transitory, dust-enshrouded phase in galaxy evolution, or a combination of both. The role of an inner torus around the central SMBH also remains unclear in pure Evolution models. We use cosmological semi-analytic models and semi-empirical prescriptions to explore obscuration effects in AGN at 1

The Flat Cover Conjecture for Monoid Acts
Sean Cox
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04155 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.04155

The Flat Cover Conjecture for Monoid Acts
We prove that the Flat Cover Conjecture holds for the category of (right) acts over any right-reversible monoid $S$, provided that the flat $S$-acts are closed under stable Rees extensions. The argument shows that the class $\mathcal{F}$-Mono ($S$-act monomorphisms with flat Rees quotient) is cofibrantly generated in such categories, answering a question of Bailey and Renshaw. But cofibrant generation of $\mathcal{SF}$-Mono ($S$-act monomorphisms with \emph{strongly} flat Rees quotient) appears…

On commensurators of free groups and free pro-p groups
Yiftach Barnea, Mikhail Ershov, Adrien Le Boudec, Colin D. Reid, Matteo Vannacci, Thomas Weigel
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04120

On commensurators of free groups and free pro-p groups
We study the commensurators of free groups and free pro-$p$ groups, as well as certain subgroups of these. We prove that the commensurator $Comm(F)$ of a non-abelian free group of finite rank $F$ is not virtually simple, answering a question of Lubotzky. On the other hand, we exhibit a family of easy-to-define finitely generated subgroups of $Comm(F)$ and show that some groups in this family are simple. For a prime $p$, we also consider the p-commensurator $Comm_p(F)$, which is the commensura…

Flavour Physics Beyond the Standard Model
Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Peter Stangl
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03950 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.03950

Flavour Physics Beyond the Standard Model
Flavour physics plays a central role in the search for physics beyond the Standard Model, posing fundamental questions whose answers may point to new physics scales far above the electroweak scale. The flavour structure of the Standard Model is strikingly hierarchical, hinting at underlying organizing principles yet to be uncovered. At the same time, flavour-changing processes rank among the most sensitive probes of new physics. In this chapter, we review how precision measurements of flavour-v…

I don't like support chat rooms.
I know the are popular among open source projects, but whenever I have a question it's either buried by a completely unrelated conversation or I get an answer 3 days later without anyone @mentioning me so I have little chance of finding it.
I think the Fediverse is much better suited for asking questions.

So to summarize this whole adventure:
1. A good 45 minutes was spent to get an answer that we probably could have gotten in 5 minutes in the 2010's, or in maybe 1-2 hours in the 1990's.
2. The time investment wasn't a total waste as we learned a lot along the way that we wouldn't have in the 2010's. Most relevant is the wide range of variation (e.g. a 2x factor depending on fiber intake!).
3. Most of the search engine results were confidently wrong answers that had no relation to reality. We were lucky to get one that had real citations we could start from (but that same article included the bogus 4.91 kcal/gram number). Next time I want to know a random factoid I might just start on Google scholar.
4. At least one page we chased citations through had a note at the top about being frozen due to NIH funding issues. The digital commons is under attack on multiple fronts.
All of this is yet another reason not to support the big LLM companies.
#AI

Lagrange-like interpolation in unitary rings, Boolean algebras and Boolean posets
Ivan Chajda, Helmut L\"anger
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04836 https://

Lagrange-like interpolation in unitary rings, Boolean algebras and Boolean posets
It is known that every function with a finite support over a given field can be interpolated by means of the Lagrangian polynomial. The question is if a similar interpolation is possible if one considers a unitary ring or a Boolean algebra instead of a field. We get a positive answer to this question provided the similarity type of the algebra in question is enriched with one more unary operation, the so-called Baaz delta. We get an explicit construction of this interpolation polynomial in both…

How popular media gets love wrong
Okay, so what exactly are the details of the "engineered" model of love from my previous post? I'll try to summarize my thoughts and the experiences they're built on.
1. "Love" can be be thought of like a mechanism that's built by two (or more) people. In this case, no single person can build the thing alone, to work it needs contributions from multiple people (I suppose self-love might be an exception to that). In any case, the builders can intentionally choose how they build (and maintain) the mechanism, they can build it differently to suit their particular needs/wants, and they will need to maintain and repair it over time to keep it running. It may need winding, or fuel, or charging plus oil changes and bolt-tightening, etc.
2. Any two (or more) people can choose to start building love between them at any time. No need to "find your soulmate" or "wait for the right person." Now the caveat is that the mechanism is difficult to build and requires lots of cooperation, so there might indeed be "wrong people" to try to build love with. People in general might experience more failures than successes. The key component is slowly-escalating shared commitment to the project, which is negotiated between the partners so that neither one feels like they've been left to do all the work themselves. Since it's a big scary project though, it's very easy to decide it's too hard and give up, and so the builders need to encourage each other and pace themselves. The project can only succeed if there's mutual commitment, and that will certainly require compromise (sometimes even sacrifice, though not always). If the mechanism works well, the benefits (companionship; encouragement; praise; loving sex; hugs; etc.) will be well worth the compromises you make to build it, but this isn't always the case.
3. The mechanism is prone to falling apart if not maintained. In my view, the "fire" and "appeal" models of love don't adequately convey the need for this maintenance and lead to a lot of under-maintained relationships many of which fall apart. You'll need to do things together that make you happy, do things that make your partner happy (in some cases even if they annoy you, but never in a transactional or box-checking way), spend time with shared attention, spend time alone and/or apart, reassure each other through words (or deeds) of mutual beliefs (especially your continued commitment to the relationship), do things that comfort and/or excite each other physically (anywhere from hugs to hand-holding to sex) and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Not *every* relationship needs *all* of these maintenance techniques, but I think most will need most. Note especially that patriarchy teaches men that they don't need to bother with any of this, which harms primarily their romantic partners but secondarily them as their relationships fail due to their own (cultivated-by-patriarchy) incompetence. If a relationship evolves to a point where one person is doing all the maintenance (& improvement) work, it's been bent into a shape that no longer really qualifies as "love" in my book, and that's super unhealthy.
4. The key things to negotiate when trying to build a new love are first, how to work together in the first place, and how to be comfortable around each others' habits (or how to change those habits). Second, what level of commitment you have right now, and what how/when you want to increase that commitment. Additionally, I think it's worth checking in about what you're each putting into and getting out of the relationship, to ensure that it continues to be positive for all participants. To build a successful relationship, you need to be able to incrementally increase the level of commitment to one that you're both comfortable staying at long-term, while ensuring that for both partners, the relationship is both a net benefit and has manageable costs (those two things are not the same). Obviously it's not easy to actually have conversations about these things (congratulations if you can just talk about this stuff) because there's a huge fear of hearing an answer that you don't want to hear. I think the range of discouraging answers which actually spell doom for a relationship is smaller than people think and there's usually a reasonable "shoulder" you can fall into where things aren't on a good trajectory but could be brought back into one, but even so these conversations are scary. Still, I think only having honest conversations about these things when you're angry at each other is not a good plan. You can also try to communicate some of these things via non-conversational means, if that feels safer, and at least being aware that these are the objectives you're pursuing is probably helpful.
I'll post two more replies here about my own experiences that led me to this mental model and trying to distill this into advice, although it will take me a moment to get to those.
#relationships #love