As I suspected. See, I didn't mean to suggest that there's some ulterior motives or malicious intent in not explicitly disclosing his relationship to the project. I merely wanted to convey that there is often an expectation of full disclosure of relationships, and that (especially in industry) even potential (although clearly nonexistant) conflicts of interest are disclosed simply in the name of transparency and good faith. For example, let's look at this arbitrary post, where a researcher feels compelled to disclose his affiliation with the team that wrote an academic paper. Why? Is he concerned that if he was "found out", people might think he's trying to make a quick buck by astroturfing for some team of researchers and advertising their paper? No, that wouldn't even make sense. Much like in the case of this MediaGoblin project, there isn't any way a reasonable person could suspect some sort of malice in withholding disclosure of such a relationship. However, disclosure is still expected, if for no other reason than transparency and a show of good faith. I suspect paroneayea has nothing to lose by disclosing his relationship with MediaGoblin, but something as trivial as this lapse in transparency can cause some to question the motivation behind it. Plus, there's nothing wrong with bragging about being the core developer!
I'm not even sure what your last sentence (and I use the term loosely) means. "Described fully linked which second sentence" isn't a grammatical construct with which I'm familiar.
In any case, I asked you to "succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context)", and you just replied with a post devoid of any meaningful content, instead linking me to another post, which entertainingly enough linked to another post (twice, even). This is especially ironic in the context of my complaint that "every time I seek clarification regarding what exactly your objection is, you offer... a tangle of links", which is indeed what you just did.
It seems that you are unwilling or unable to provide the clarification I seek, or to succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context). Why is that?
If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?
You would start by simply asking. Persistent knee pain after a skiing injury caused me to go see a doctor. Doctor suspected that I had a minor tear in my anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). I went to a medical imaging facility where I paid for an MRI scan. They provided the resulting data to me on a CD or DVD. I'm fairly sure that the data was in some proprietary format, but it was bundled with a [Windows binary] viewer tool that allowed me to view the resultant dataset graphically. I had no idea how to evaluate my medical condition from this data at the time. While I did take the data to several specialists, I also read up on what minor ACL tears look like on an MRI and was able to sanity-check the work of these doctors to ensure they weren't selling me a surgery I didn't need. In the end, I opted out of surgery, and with some minor physical therapy I've been able to regain full knee function. Hiking and skiing again without having had my knee cut open.
Brief aside: I used to drive cab in Bangor. Watch out for the synthetic opiate addicts, they're everywhere.
Nor had you read the post of mine you were replying to.
Statements like this are ambiguous and lack sufficient context to be valuable. Are you referring to your last post, the post we were previously discussing, or some other post entirely?
If you could succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context), it would greatly assist me in addressing it. As it stands, after reading quite a volume of your posts spanning several days, I only know that you object to my claim of caloric fungibility, but I still don't know why. Sometimes it seems that your objection revolves around my claim not being supported by the study (or TFA), which isn't even relevant. Other times it seems that it has something to do with unrelated factors like gut biomes or water weight. Other times it seems to be for logically invalid reasons (my idiocy, my verbosity, etc.). However, every time I seek clarification regarding what exactly your objection is, you offer either a tangle of links or non sequitur statements.
To clarify, can you in a single unambiguous context-free post succinctly provide complete evidence of your claim that some molecules of ATP carry more chemical potential energy than others, and that this discrepancy is dependent on the dietary source of said ATP?
Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright.
I don't know what airlines you're flying, but in my experience, there is no ability to recline sufficiently to sit anything but upright when flying coach.
The 10 degree recline that seems to be the norm today is so minimal that cabin crew rarely even notice when people's seats aren't in the full upright position for takeoff and approach.
As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study
Again, I didn't even read the study (or TFA), so it's not possible for me to have formed conclusions based on it. You mistook my claims about caloric fungibility for conclusions stemming from the study. They're not. They stem from the known laws of physics.
your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.
Presumably you're talking about the rhetorical questions I posed many, many posts ago, as there were no questions in my last post. If that is indeed the case, then it should have been evident that I was seeking clarification of your allegation that I was drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study. Specifically, I sought clarification regarding what conclusions you thought I was drawing from gut biomes or water weight, as my claims of caloric fungibility weren't drawn from those factors, so presumably you must have been referring to some other conclusions that I didn't know I was drawing at all. You maintain that I "didn't read it properly" but still haven't provided the clarification I was seeking.
That's fine. They charge a premium for the extra legroom. But how much of a discount do you get for agreeing to throw open the side exits in case of an emergency?
Or, conversely, why is it not scummy for airlines to demand uncompensated emergency services from passengers?
And however much you might want to pretend that anything I've said relates to the study (or even TFA), it doesn't, and you know it.
It's not clear from context what you mean by "factors"; I had used the term nine posts earlier in the context of gut biomes, water weight, or other diet-related issues that you were bringing up but are orthogonal to my claim of caloric fungibility. If we can assume that the context is preserved across nine posts (despite several successful attempts by you to change the subject), then indeed, "unrelated factors" would be inappropriate in this context, and my post would have been better off referring to "the study". Even if this were the case, my argument would still stand, as it's similarly impossible for me to have drawn more conclusions than warranted from a study that I didn't bring up. Of course, if we can assume that context is not preserved across nine posts (many of which were on entirely different subjects), then indeed, my statement is fine the way it is, since "factors" in such an open context could indeed include the study itself (which is both unrelated to my claim of caloric fungibility as well as not brought up by me) going by any common definition of the word "factor".
The second sentence of your post is "I brought it up because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study."
The very first sentence of my reply is "I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up?", itself a clear reference to the second sentence of your post.
I believe this is a valid counterexample against the claim that I didn't reach the second sentence of that post.
Tangentially, my "long reply" contained 141 words, which is only 81% the length of an average English paragraph.
Brief aside: you've once again satisfied my expectation that you'd digress to yet another objection in your reply. I wonder what unrelated/irrational tangent your next reply will take us on.
It seems as though you're having difficulties forming complete sentences. I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to say here, but you seem to be suggesting that I can't reach the second sentence of a post. The second sentence of your previous post was a question, one that I unambiguously answer with the very first sentence of my response. I'm not sure how I'd be answering the question you posed without having been able to reach it in my reading, so this new accusation of yours is as much at odds with rational thought as were your previous ones.
Brief aside: you've once again satisfied my expectation that you'd digress to yet another objection in your reply. I wonder what unrelated/irrational tangent your next reply will take us on.
I do think a reply to a post should have some relation to it.
However, your reply didn't really address my point that you're denying the content of your own posts, thereby contradicting yourself. Instead of addressing this point, you've moved on to (or returned to) accusations of me allegedly drawing unwarranted conclusions from a study I haven't even read. One minute you're denying that you ever opposed my claim of caloric fungibility (even when presented with evidence of such), and when I call you out on this baseless denial you once again have no retort.
Your reply was offtopic, as was this last one which is now focusing on the norms of message board discussions. Once again, you can't seem to stay on one topic for more than a single post. I fully expect you to digress to some new objection in your subsequent reply.
So you allege that I draw unwarranted conclusions from the study, whereas I maintain that I didn't bring up any of these unrelated factors, and therefore could not have drawn conclusions from them. It seems like you're just repeating yourself and citing earlier instances of the same claim as your basis. That's circular reasoning.
If you can cite me drawing unwarranted conclusions "from the study", as opposed to from the known laws of physics, now would be a good time to do so. Otherwise, it would be nice if you could stop reiterating your baseless claim that I'm drawing any conclusions from the study.
Further compounding the absurdity of your allegations is the fact that I didn't read the study, nor even the article. I still don't understand how, in light of that, I could be drawing conclusions (unwarranted or otherwise) from something I'm not cognizant of. I don't believe I ever referred to the study as the basis for my claim that all ATP molecules are fungible in the human body regardless of their dietary source, but I encourage you to demonstrate otherwise.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you can help me out then. I fell in love with C (and to a somewhat lesser extent assembly) when I was learning to code. Fast foward to today and I'm stuck coding Java, where things are getting more and more abstract. I'm desperately looking to switch jobs before I end up pigeonholed into high-level coding for the rest of my life. Embedded development, systems programming, drivers, anything closer to the metal. So far I've only found one such position, but it was entry level (with an entry level salary), and I've been coding for 5-8 years. I'm willing to drop down to a junior position since I don't have any "real" experience doing low level work (although my degree is in Electrical and Computer Engineering and I spent a good portion of my college education tinkering with microcontrollers), but haven't had any luck even finding a single position like that. I'm in NJ near NYC, where most coding jobs tend towards the finance sector. Are you aware of any employers that have a presence in the NYC area (or are open to the possibility of remote work) that do low level work? The only things I can think of would be Qualcomm or any of the other phone-chip makers (but I know very little about phones)...
Your inability to clearly frame your argument leaves me quoting your own words and you denying them. This makes for a lousy, uninsightful conversation. Are you now saying slashdot is modifying your posts, or that someone else was responsible for the linked post instead of you?
You understand only one point at a time so we have only reached that part yet.
Your unwillingness to focus on one point at a time has resulted in an unbelievably long thread.
My understanding of a variety of units of measure only helped to understand the original point the OP was making, which was to say "awkward unit system you use".
Sure, so if OP had said "Still using Burmese measurements?", you'd still be backing him up? I mean, it's just some awkward unit system, right? Who cares if his claim has any basis in reality, you know what he meant, right?
What the hell is up with you people over there in the US. Still using Imperial measurements? Banning science in favour of teaching about a wizard who made everything not so long ago. producing 40% of the worlds pollution whilst only having 4% of the worlds population
The topic of this article may be about the teaching of the scientific process, but the post I was replying to did specifically bring up units of measure as well as pollution:population ratio and even religion. If you feel those are offtopic subjects, feel free to complain to OP, not me.
I interpreted that when you used the word "undisclosed" you wanted to imply he was purposely keeping secret his affiliations.
I don't know if he was keeping secret his affiliations purposely or incidentally. I only know that none of paroneayea's submitted stories about MediaGoblin (of which this is the fifth consecutive one since 2013) have mentioned any affiliation whatsoever. Therefore, as far as slashdot story submissions go, there has been no disclosed relationship between paroneayea and MediaGoblin, despite his posting history suggesting otherwise. All I'm saying is that paroneayea seems to be affiliated with MediaGoblin, yet has not disclosed such a relationship.
Perhaps there is no relationship, and paroneayea is merely a big fan of MediaGoblin (and totally uninterested in any other subject). Or conversely, perhaps there is one, and it's not being disclosed alongside these story submissions. I'm not implying anything beyond the fact that the latter seems likely to me.
I thought you said it was false specifically because a different number of calories could be metabolized in the two cases. Since I had earlier clarified that I was referring only to calories that are metabolized (and not to food that passes through undigested), and that the number of calories are thus equal in both cases (by definition), it is not clear to me why you're insisting that it's still false. What's your objection this time?
Right, and if she had literally said "I hate video games with a passion", she could still have loved video games. You know, a love-hate relationship. Yea, that's the ticket.
You make other apologists look amateur in comparison.
No mechanism. But question is not of metabolized calories. Question is the of calories you "eat" - which includes metabolized calories and excreted calories.
Remember : "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same."
Since neither I nor the authors of this study were concerned with people that suffer from abnormal digestion and metabolism, it's already "proven" by virtue of being a tautology. All normal people will get the same caloric input from 12000 consumed, digested, and metabolized calories, by definition. It seems that you're hung up on this "everyone digests differently" axiom; in that case, I recommend you s/eat/eat+digest+metabolize/g on all of my posts, since that's what I (and the authors of the study) are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
As I suspected. See, I didn't mean to suggest that there's some ulterior motives or malicious intent in not explicitly disclosing his relationship to the project. I merely wanted to convey that there is often an expectation of full disclosure of relationships, and that (especially in industry) even potential (although clearly nonexistant) conflicts of interest are disclosed simply in the name of transparency and good faith. For example, let's look at this arbitrary post, where a researcher feels compelled to disclose his affiliation with the team that wrote an academic paper. Why? Is he concerned that if he was "found out", people might think he's trying to make a quick buck by astroturfing for some team of researchers and advertising their paper? No, that wouldn't even make sense. Much like in the case of this MediaGoblin project, there isn't any way a reasonable person could suspect some sort of malice in withholding disclosure of such a relationship. However, disclosure is still expected, if for no other reason than transparency and a show of good faith. I suspect paroneayea has nothing to lose by disclosing his relationship with MediaGoblin, but something as trivial as this lapse in transparency can cause some to question the motivation behind it. Plus, there's nothing wrong with bragging about being the core developer!
Fucking grammar, how does it work?
... a tangle of links", which is indeed what you just did.
I'm not even sure what your last sentence (and I use the term loosely) means. "Described fully linked which second sentence" isn't a grammatical construct with which I'm familiar.
In any case, I asked you to "succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context)", and you just replied with a post devoid of any meaningful content, instead linking me to another post, which entertainingly enough linked to another post (twice, even). This is especially ironic in the context of my complaint that "every time I seek clarification regarding what exactly your objection is, you offer
It seems that you are unwilling or unable to provide the clarification I seek, or to succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context). Why is that?
If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?
You would start by simply asking. Persistent knee pain after a skiing injury caused me to go see a doctor. Doctor suspected that I had a minor tear in my anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). I went to a medical imaging facility where I paid for an MRI scan. They provided the resulting data to me on a CD or DVD. I'm fairly sure that the data was in some proprietary format, but it was bundled with a [Windows binary] viewer tool that allowed me to view the resultant dataset graphically. I had no idea how to evaluate my medical condition from this data at the time. While I did take the data to several specialists, I also read up on what minor ACL tears look like on an MRI and was able to sanity-check the work of these doctors to ensure they weren't selling me a surgery I didn't need. In the end, I opted out of surgery, and with some minor physical therapy I've been able to regain full knee function. Hiking and skiing again without having had my knee cut open.
Brief aside: I used to drive cab in Bangor. Watch out for the synthetic opiate addicts, they're everywhere.
Nor had you read the post of mine you were replying to.
Statements like this are ambiguous and lack sufficient context to be valuable. Are you referring to your last post, the post we were previously discussing, or some other post entirely?
If you could succinctly state your objection (in its entirety) in one single post (without ambiguous references or missing context), it would greatly assist me in addressing it. As it stands, after reading quite a volume of your posts spanning several days, I only know that you object to my claim of caloric fungibility, but I still don't know why. Sometimes it seems that your objection revolves around my claim not being supported by the study (or TFA), which isn't even relevant. Other times it seems that it has something to do with unrelated factors like gut biomes or water weight. Other times it seems to be for logically invalid reasons (my idiocy, my verbosity, etc.). However, every time I seek clarification regarding what exactly your objection is, you offer either a tangle of links or non sequitur statements.
To clarify, can you in a single unambiguous context-free post succinctly provide complete evidence of your claim that some molecules of ATP carry more chemical potential energy than others, and that this discrepancy is dependent on the dietary source of said ATP?
Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright.
I don't know what airlines you're flying, but in my experience, there is no ability to recline sufficiently to sit anything but upright when flying coach.
The 10 degree recline that seems to be the norm today is so minimal that cabin crew rarely even notice when people's seats aren't in the full upright position for takeoff and approach.
As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study
Again, I didn't even read the study (or TFA), so it's not possible for me to have formed conclusions based on it. You mistook my claims about caloric fungibility for conclusions stemming from the study. They're not. They stem from the known laws of physics.
your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.
Presumably you're talking about the rhetorical questions I posed many, many posts ago, as there were no questions in my last post. If that is indeed the case, then it should have been evident that I was seeking clarification of your allegation that I was drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study. Specifically, I sought clarification regarding what conclusions you thought I was drawing from gut biomes or water weight, as my claims of caloric fungibility weren't drawn from those factors, so presumably you must have been referring to some other conclusions that I didn't know I was drawing at all. You maintain that I "didn't read it properly" but still haven't provided the clarification I was seeking.
That's fine. They charge a premium for the extra legroom. But how much of a discount do you get for agreeing to throw open the side exits in case of an emergency?
Or, conversely, why is it not scummy for airlines to demand uncompensated emergency services from passengers?
I guess poor black people just aren't that interested in rape compared to poor white people.
Or that once you go black, you never go back. Consensually or not.
A racist rape joke? Mods: come at me bro.
And however much you might want to pretend that anything I've said relates to the study (or even TFA), it doesn't, and you know it.
It's not clear from context what you mean by "factors"; I had used the term nine posts earlier in the context of gut biomes, water weight, or other diet-related issues that you were bringing up but are orthogonal to my claim of caloric fungibility. If we can assume that the context is preserved across nine posts (despite several successful attempts by you to change the subject), then indeed, "unrelated factors" would be inappropriate in this context, and my post would have been better off referring to "the study". Even if this were the case, my argument would still stand, as it's similarly impossible for me to have drawn more conclusions than warranted from a study that I didn't bring up. Of course, if we can assume that context is not preserved across nine posts (many of which were on entirely different subjects), then indeed, my statement is fine the way it is, since "factors" in such an open context could indeed include the study itself (which is both unrelated to my claim of caloric fungibility as well as not brought up by me) going by any common definition of the word "factor".
The second sentence of your post is "I brought it up because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study."
The very first sentence of my reply is "I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up?", itself a clear reference to the second sentence of your post.
I believe this is a valid counterexample against the claim that I didn't reach the second sentence of that post.
Tangentially, my "long reply" contained 141 words, which is only 81% the length of an average English paragraph.
Brief aside: you've once again satisfied my expectation that you'd digress to yet another objection in your reply. I wonder what unrelated/irrational tangent your next reply will take us on.
It seems as though you're having difficulties forming complete sentences. I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to say here, but you seem to be suggesting that I can't reach the second sentence of a post. The second sentence of your previous post was a question, one that I unambiguously answer with the very first sentence of my response. I'm not sure how I'd be answering the question you posed without having been able to reach it in my reading, so this new accusation of yours is as much at odds with rational thought as were your previous ones.
Brief aside: you've once again satisfied my expectation that you'd digress to yet another objection in your reply. I wonder what unrelated/irrational tangent your next reply will take us on.
I do think a reply to a post should have some relation to it.
However, your reply didn't really address my point that you're denying the content of your own posts, thereby contradicting yourself. Instead of addressing this point, you've moved on to (or returned to) accusations of me allegedly drawing unwarranted conclusions from a study I haven't even read. One minute you're denying that you ever opposed my claim of caloric fungibility (even when presented with evidence of such), and when I call you out on this baseless denial you once again have no retort.
Your reply was offtopic, as was this last one which is now focusing on the norms of message board discussions. Once again, you can't seem to stay on one topic for more than a single post. I fully expect you to digress to some new objection in your subsequent reply.
So you allege that I draw unwarranted conclusions from the study, whereas I maintain that I didn't bring up any of these unrelated factors, and therefore could not have drawn conclusions from them. It seems like you're just repeating yourself and citing earlier instances of the same claim as your basis. That's circular reasoning.
If you can cite me drawing unwarranted conclusions "from the study", as opposed to from the known laws of physics, now would be a good time to do so. Otherwise, it would be nice if you could stop reiterating your baseless claim that I'm drawing any conclusions from the study.
Further compounding the absurdity of your allegations is the fact that I didn't read the study, nor even the article. I still don't understand how, in light of that, I could be drawing conclusions (unwarranted or otherwise) from something I'm not cognizant of. I don't believe I ever referred to the study as the basis for my claim that all ATP molecules are fungible in the human body regardless of their dietary source, but I encourage you to demonstrate otherwise.
Perhaps you can help me out then. I fell in love with C (and to a somewhat lesser extent assembly) when I was learning to code. Fast foward to today and I'm stuck coding Java, where things are getting more and more abstract. I'm desperately looking to switch jobs before I end up pigeonholed into high-level coding for the rest of my life. Embedded development, systems programming, drivers, anything closer to the metal. So far I've only found one such position, but it was entry level (with an entry level salary), and I've been coding for 5-8 years. I'm willing to drop down to a junior position since I don't have any "real" experience doing low level work (although my degree is in Electrical and Computer Engineering and I spent a good portion of my college education tinkering with microcontrollers), but haven't had any luck even finding a single position like that. I'm in NJ near NYC, where most coding jobs tend towards the finance sector. Are you aware of any employers that have a presence in the NYC area (or are open to the possibility of remote work) that do low level work? The only things I can think of would be Qualcomm or any of the other phone-chip makers (but I know very little about phones)...
"Specifically because" is not true.
Your inability to clearly frame your argument leaves me quoting your own words and you denying them. This makes for a lousy, uninsightful conversation. Are you now saying slashdot is modifying your posts, or that someone else was responsible for the linked post instead of you?
You understand only one point at a time so we have only reached that part yet.
Your unwillingness to focus on one point at a time has resulted in an unbelievably long thread.
My understanding of a variety of units of measure only helped to understand the original point the OP was making, which was to say "awkward unit system you use".
Sure, so if OP had said "Still using Burmese measurements?", you'd still be backing him up? I mean, it's just some awkward unit system, right? Who cares if his claim has any basis in reality, you know what he meant, right?
What the hell is up with you people over there in the US. Still using Imperial measurements? Banning science in favour of teaching about a wizard who made everything not so long ago. producing 40% of the worlds pollution whilst only having 4% of the worlds population
The topic of this article may be about the teaching of the scientific process, but the post I was replying to did specifically bring up units of measure as well as pollution:population ratio and even religion. If you feel those are offtopic subjects, feel free to complain to OP, not me.
I interpreted that when you used the word "undisclosed" you wanted to imply he was purposely keeping secret his affiliations.
I don't know if he was keeping secret his affiliations purposely or incidentally. I only know that none of paroneayea's submitted stories about MediaGoblin (of which this is the fifth consecutive one since 2013) have mentioned any affiliation whatsoever. Therefore, as far as slashdot story submissions go, there has been no disclosed relationship between paroneayea and MediaGoblin, despite his posting history suggesting otherwise. All I'm saying is that paroneayea seems to be affiliated with MediaGoblin, yet has not disclosed such a relationship.
Perhaps there is no relationship, and paroneayea is merely a big fan of MediaGoblin (and totally uninterested in any other subject). Or conversely, perhaps there is one, and it's not being disclosed alongside these story submissions. I'm not implying anything beyond the fact that the latter seems likely to me.
I thought you said it was false specifically because a different number of calories could be metabolized in the two cases. Since I had earlier clarified that I was referring only to calories that are metabolized (and not to food that passes through undigested), and that the number of calories are thus equal in both cases (by definition), it is not clear to me why you're insisting that it's still false. What's your objection this time?
So then wouldn't it be roughly 35 thousand calories for both the pizza and the kale? Does addition work differently with different food sources?
I guess the one up side is that they're doing a pretty good job of making this line of thinking look really, really gross.
When incredulity and skepticism are made to look really, really gross, we're all worse off for it.
Disclaimer: I'm equal parts misogynist and misandrist.
Right, and if she had literally said "I hate video games with a passion", she could still have loved video games. You know, a love-hate relationship. Yea, that's the ticket.
You make other apologists look amateur in comparison.
Isn't it closer to 12 thousand?
No mechanism. But question is not of metabolized calories. Question is the of calories you "eat" - which includes metabolized calories and excreted calories.
Remember : "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same."
If you remember, roughly 30 posts ago, I said
Since neither I nor the authors of this study were concerned with people that suffer from abnormal digestion and metabolism, it's already "proven" by virtue of being a tautology. All normal people will get the same caloric input from 12000 consumed, digested, and metabolized calories, by definition. It seems that you're hung up on this "everyone digests differently" axiom; in that case, I recommend you s/eat/eat+digest+metabolize/g on all of my posts, since that's what I (and the authors of the study) are talking about.
Emphasis mine.
Why would the content of expelled feces have any impact on metabolized calories that remain in the body? By what mechanism?