Tootfinder

I had this idea for a Cairn lifepath generator where there are three stages of life and you roll 1d6 for your stats at each stage, and also get appropriate items.
It has not been playtested, it's barely been proofread, but I've been having a lot of fun generating guys
perchance.org/lt8m69fg35
#ttrpg #CairnRpg

There's a whole bunch of recent #ThingUmbrella updates which I still have to write about, but one of the things is the reworked, improved and more customizable optical flow (aka https://thi.ng/pixel-flow

Naive, lightweight CPU-based dense optical flow implementation

📰 Deine Spende macht’s möglich: Ich informiere täglich über #Klima und #Forschung auf Deutsch, damit englischdominierte #Wissenschaftsmeldungen besser zugänglich werden. Danke für das Tei…

KlimaCrew
Ich informiere über Zukunftsthemen, um Menschen vor Risiken zu warnen und Fortschritte sichtbar zu machen.

⭐️Honey bees vs. native pollinators
The damage does not stop with bees. The study highlights that honey bee pollination leads to poorer plant offspring quality compared to native bee pollination.
This happens because honey bees often visit many flowers on the same plant before moving to another.
This behavior increases the chances of self-pollination, which can lead to inbreeding depression in plants.
Such effects could ripple through ecosystems. Plants that rely on nat…

Honey bee invasion: A growing threat to native pollinators
Honey bees outcompete native bees, removing most pollen and threatening wild ecosystems in Southern California.

Excuse-of-a-dog now doing plausible otter impressions. I give up.

Die Race Conditions im Wissensmanagement findet man nicht nur bei KI-Nutzern.
"Bei der Analyse ist herausgekommen, dass mehr als jede dritte Seite problematisch sein soll. Mindestens 20 Prozent der Einträge enthielten demnach Informationen, "die nicht mehr aktuell sind". Nur bei der Hälfte davon steche dies Nutzern sofort ins Auge."

Wikipedia wegen vieler Fehler und veralteter Informationen in der Kritik
Von über 1000 zufällig ausgewählten Artikeln in der Wikipedia enthalten laut einer Analyse rund 40 Prozent Angaben, die nicht mehr aktuell oder fehlerhaft sind.

DOGE vowed to make government more ‘efficient’ — but it’s doing the opposite - The Washington Post #USA #Trump

DOGE vowed to make government more ‘efficient’ — but it’s doing the opposite
New procedures and requirements — some implemented in the name of improving operations — are slowing down federal agencies.

Le trafic est perturbé entre La Verrière et La Défense dans les 2 sens.
Pour plus d'informations sur cette perturbation, consultez le fil X de la ligne U.
Motif : respect des distances entre les trains dans le secteur de Versailles-Chantiers.
🤖 07/07 17:09

Le trafic est fortement ralenti entre Paris Gare de Lyon et Montargis et entre Paris Gare de Lyon et Montereau via Moret Veneux les S. dans les 2 sens. Prévoir des allongements de trajet, des modifications de desserte et des suppressions. Pour plus d’informations sur cette perturbation, consultez le fil X de la ligne R.
Motif : individus sur les voies dans le secteur de Thomery (incident terminé).
🤖 06/06 20:42

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.