GLP women are smarter than GLP men

hmmm. how do we know the program was not programmed by a fembot?

couldn't that cause some degree of bias?

nonetheless, these are interesting results.
==============

WHY did it choose GLP, pray tell???

Maybe it's a conspiracy?

marketed*
sequitur
non-sequitur
employed [and] normalized

dumbass

Yeah I wrote some software too. It gave me a 10 and everyone else a 5 so I win the entire planet. Prove me wrong!

And there are 11 secret herbs and spices you dolt.

Pretty sure my developer is not a fembot. LoL
I did much of the design.

Women are taking over the world...at least it will be clean and well fed.

:makemeasandwich :

you know, I'm just playing around...

Yeah, I'm a male dumb-ass, no doubt. ;-`)
Perhaps I should've coded for drunken/tired posting?

Me too...i judge for content and don't care of race or gender....but a good thread for a gender war...in fun of course.

By the way my wife is smarter than me and earns more...I cook and clean and get home early for the kids. I make the sandwich ..lol

So back to the war!


:feminism :

Let me guess the op was a male ?? Trying to win browny points cause a female would not state this ……..

No war here. Just some insight to next gen analytics. ;-`)

Did you take hermaphrodites into consideration. It could skew the results.

Was and is a man. Lol.
I need no brownie points. ;-`)

i suppose OPs 'program' has some sort of trans-dimensional sensors to see who is really sitting behind the keyboard? if that's the case where is the automated bot section?

OP is just lonely and wants attention from women, which he apparently can't get in real life.

Yeah........ that will end well on page 7

Almost 4 AM for me, but I'll respond before slumber.

Simple context analysis programs have been around since BBS of the 1980's.
Combine that with a promiscuous net capture and whatever IP customer binding info one might have and frankly 82% sucks. LoL NooB.

^ This ^

When you are working with evaluative statistics, the results will always fall between 0 and 1. Closer to one is obviously the group that has performed closer to whatever the evaluative criteria might be. Now it has been said that criteria is proprietary so we aren't gonna find out what what it is exactly, but women are doing better overall. They projected that they were able to accurately gauge the sex of the subjects correctly 83.xx% of the time, meaning that there is a margin for error with the over results of 8%, or a confidence level that the results are correct of 82%

Yout must be doing it wrong.

It's a 92% confidence level and that blows the doors off of all comparative/predictive software currently on the market.

You can't blame her for that.....

Aussies gonna aussie. How do I correct for that? LoL

"When you are working with evaluative statistics, the results will always fall between 0 and 1. Closer to one is obviously the group that has performed closer to whatever the evaluative criteria might be. Now it has been said that criteria is proprietary so we aren't gonna find out what what it is exactly, but women are doing better overall. They projected that they were able to accurately gauge the sex of the subjects correctly 83.xx% of the time, meaning that there is a margin for error with the over results of 8%, or a confidence level that the results are correct of 82%"


This evaluation technique how was it done: random people various intellectual capabilities seleted with equal number to represent each sex.. Or with the equal intellectual capabilities with equal number to represent each sex ???

How do you make KFC Chicken?
Is it better than Popeye's Fried Chicken?

That didn't answer the question… But with that being said you do surely represent the males intellectual capabilties CORRECTLY :) …..

No need to correct perfection........just saying.