Tootfinder

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.

Arbiter PUF: Uniqueness and Reliability Analysis Using Hybrid CMOS-Stanford Memristor Model
Tanvir Rahman, A. B. M. Harun-ur Rashid
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04461

Arbiter PUF: Uniqueness and Reliability Analysis Using Hybrid CMOS-Stanford Memristor Model
In an increasingly interconnected world, protecting electronic devices has grown more crucial because of the dangers of data extraction, reverse engineering, and hardware tampering. Producing chips in a third-party manufacturing company can let hackers change the design. As the Internet of Things (IoT) proliferates, physical attacks happen more, and conventional cryptography techniques do not function well. In this paper, we investigate the design and assessment of PUFs using the Stanford Memri…

OPTIMUMP2P: Fast and Reliable Gossiping in P2P Networks
Nicolas Nicolaou, Onyeka Obi, Aayush Rajasekaran, Alejandro Bergasov, Aleksandr Bezobchuk, Kishori M. Konwar, Michael Meier, Santiago Paiva, Har Preet Singh, Swarnabha Sinha
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04833

OPTIMUMP2P: Fast and Reliable Gossiping in P2P Networks
Gossip algorithms are pivotal in the dissemination of information within decentralized systems. Consequently, numerous gossip libraries have been developed and widely utilized especially in blockchain protocols for the propagation of blocks and transactions. A well-established library is libp2p, which provides two gossip algorithms: floodsup and gossibsup. These algorithms enable the delivery of published messages to a set of peers. In this work we aim to enhance the performance and reliability…

#FotoDerWoche nochmal im Plural und nochmal Kopenhagen - u.a. mit Eindrücken zu Christiania und musealen 70ern.
https://blog.till-westermayer.de/index

Photo of the week: Copenhagen (part II)
Dass ich Kopenhagen als eine entspannte und freundliche Großstadt kennengelernt habe, lag möglicherweise auch daran, dass ich zufälligerweise genau in der Pride-Week da war. Mehr dazu, zu Christiania, zu Museen und zu ein paar Impressionen unten. Copenhagen Pride Der Zug der Pride-Parade began

So #Gentoo #Python eclasses are pretty modern, in the sense that they tend to follow the best practices and standards, and eventually deal with deprecations. Nevertheless, they have a long history and carry quite some historical burden, particularly regarding to naming.
The key point is that the eclasses were conceived as a replacement for the old eclasses: "distutils" and "python". Hence, much like we revision ebuilds, I've named the matching eclasses "distutils-r1" and "python-r1". For consistency, I've also used the "-r1" suffix for the remaining eclasses introduced at the time: "python-any-r1", "python-single-r1" and "python-utils-r1" — even though there were never "r0"s.
It didn't take long to realize my first mistake. I've made the multi-impl eclass effectively the "main" eclass, probably largely inspired by the previous Gentoo recommendations. However, in the end I've found out that for the most use cases (i.e. where "distutils-r1" is not involved), there is no real need for multi-impl, and it makes things much harder. So if I were naming them today, I would have named it "python-multi", to indicate the specific use case — and either avoid designating a default at all, or made "python-single" the default.
What aged even worse is the "distutils-r1" eclass. Admittedly, back when it was conceived, distutils was still largely a thing — and there were people (like me) who avoided unnecessary dependency on setuptools. Of course, nowadays it has been entirely devoured by setuptools, and with #PEP517 even "setuptools" wouldn't be a good name anymore. Nowadays, people are getting confused why they are supposed to use "distutils-r1" for, say, Hatchling.
Admittedly, this is something I could have done differently — PEP517 support was a major migration, and involved an explicit switch. Instead of adding DISTUTILS_USE_PEP517 (what a self-contradictory name) variable, I could have forked the eclass. Why didn't I do that? Because there used to be a lot of code shared between the two paths. Of course, over time they diverged more, and eventually I've dropped the legacy support — but the opportunity to rename was lost.
In fact, as a semi-related fact, I've recognized another design problem with the eclass earlier — I should have gone for two eclasses rather than one: a "python-phase" eclass with generic sub-phase support, and a "distutils" (or later "python-pep517") implementing default sub-phases for the common backends. And again, this is precisely how I could have solved the code reuse problem when I introduced PEP517 support.
But then, I didn't anticipate how the eclasses would end up looking like in the end — and I can't really predict what new challenges the Python ecosystem is going to bring us. And I think it's too late to rename or split stuff — too much busywork on everyone.

🇺🇦 #NowPlaying on KEXP's #VarietyMix
The True Loves:
🎵 Mary Pop Poppins
#TheTrueLoves
https://thetrueloves.bandcamp.com/track/mary-pop-poppins-aka-m-p-poppins
https://open.spotify.com/track/0y0cJV3NZaSmBRvGyegP7H

I want to push back on the idea in the world of tech work that a PIP (performance improvement plan) is about getting rid of someone, that they're not intended to be survivable.
This is completely false. (I'm sure there's instances of it, of course, but the mode and vast majority are, in fact about performance improvement. Sometimes they're shadow layoffs, but that is cruel callous behavior that not everyone will exhibit.)
Now _most people do not survive the PIP process_. This is to be expected: if someone is in fact not performing, and more gentle remedies haven't worked, it's not looking good.
But here's where I get a bit spicy: most performance problems are constitutional problems with management and management style, not individual performance problems. However, since managers are as a class 'in power' somewhat, the individual contributor takes the fall for this structurally.
The intent of a PIP is not to get rid of people. It's to right performance.
However, as a system, PIPs do largely get rid of people who are constitutionally misaligned with management. Even when it's a management problem (and it usually is)

i'm finna hike up to the used record store and see if i can sell some records
Machine-generated ALT: three photos showcase a collection of 12 diverse vinyl records, spanning genres such as rock, soul, jazz, Christmas music, and contemporary pop, featuring artists like Lucinda Williams, Frank Sinatra, Chick Corea, Ramsey Lewis, Lana Del Rey, Mavis Staples, and Hugh Masekela.

Ich such ein forum projekt was in php geschrieben wurde. Leider weiss ich nicht mehr den ganzen namen
Es müsste
Wringed oder
Winged
Oder so heissen, der hauptentwickler ist franzose und war wohl auch im team von #simplemachines
Vielleicht weiss ja einer wekches prj ich meine
Bitte boosten