Does Jow Forums like to use personal assistants?

I remember back in the day nazi meant strict and nothing else. Librarians were nazis. Then occupy wall street happened and the farmers who farm our wallets set their cash cows fighting each other to get us off their backs. That was about the time antifa, nazi meaning right wing, and the concept of immigrant caravans crossed the Atlantic. And here you are shitting up my board with it, dancing to the farmers' tune. Thanks "nigga".

Attached: ballmer.png (1184x819, 22K)

Isn't siri an indian name?

Wrong!

He's an incel.

Attached: Vm4S5fH_d.jpg (640x204, 27K)

where's the alexa rule34

He lays down the truth and you know it.

Attached: 1553953816792.jpg (1000x1500, 239K)

>belly
>not hips

I think he means male belly, ie yellow shirt guy is gay and hitting on them.

belly fetish meme is being astroturfed by fat sows, no one is into that shit

I'm into athletic attractive bellies

Attached: IMG_20190123_085915.jpg (1287x1800, 129K)

You

The patrician choice.

based?

Does anyone here use Mycroft? I've been curious about it.

Oy vey, I agree. StoneToss is very very anti-semitic! He's very problematic.

Attached: Just look at all these white billionaires.png (625x605, 144K)

> athletic
> lard goes a bit over
The body is still OK, but what kind of women do you see every day if you consider this athletic?

not everyone who is athletic has 0% body fat. have you even ever touched a woman's stomach?

Attached: IMG_20190316_101410.jpg (800x1146, 76K)

>And living within a single ecosystem is no-no from me.
This is why I'm trying to get away from Google.

But I have an Android, so Google manages my contacts. I use Keep, their Calendar, and obviously Gmail. I don't know how to "get away" from them without massively inconveniencing myself.

Attached: 1548434448185.jpg (3500x3500, 806K)

>pointing out retarded social norms means incel
yikes!

Attached: skeet.png (625x1215, 103K)

>have you even ever touched a woman's stomach?
Not that user but I have, and skinny/athletic bellies are wonderful. No fat chicks though, that shit's gross.

This is a false equivalence as vaginas are self cleaning and the lady should be showering on top of that. If all the other stuff was self cleaning or was cleaned, there'd be no reason not to take it though. People are drinking water and eating food out of recycled plastics and rubbers that likely contained piss, spit, shit, or semen at some point, but nobody cares because its all disinfected and restructured.

Would you rather have a Coke or a Coke that's had 15 penises in it?

Sure, the penises were probably clean. Which do you choose? They're both Cokes.

But ever since Windows 7, they are cute anime girls, and if you live in Japan you can get their voicepacks.

Attached: __claudia_madobe_madobe_ai_madobe_nanami_madobe_tooko_and_madobe_yuu_windows_10_and_etc__sample-ef3d (850x478, 204K)

Stonestuff is good shit but don't let it make you forget about the real shit, andrew son of dob

You know its unhealthy if a woman does not have fat there right? Its literally there for child bearing purposes, seems like youre looking for an aneroxic chick who doesnt menstruate.

there is still a hint of softness though. not "thicc" but it's there unless the woman has specifically worked out muscles to look cut. the other user doesn't know what he's talking about.

Attached: IMG_20190321_113115.jpg (1200x1600, 174K)

So... Cortana is the blue haired one, my guess is that Siri is the one on the beret and Alexa is the one on with the yellow sweater? Neither of those representations go according to their names or proposed images (Cortana, after all, is based on the AI from the Halo franchise; maybe if Siri was made by the mid-to-late 90s Apple that bohemian personality would fit her; and what could you link with Google/Alexa? Evil? Killing projects? Selling your personal information?).

What kind of false equivalency is this? Do you understand how anything works?

Attached: 1452683046159.jpg (424x620, 96K)

As far as I know I'm randomly being given either whenever I go to the store and purchase a Coke. From my perspective its Schrödinger's dick in that coke bottle, your coke bottle, and every single coke bottle that has ever been made since they started recycling plastics. Ultimately, it's not worth worrying about due to sanitation practices. That's just how it works with recycled plastics.

It's just relearning some habits. Stop being a good goy

>not making your own
If you really want it make it

>m-muh false equivalency
Worse than the people who say "correlation is not causation" as if that somehow means all correlation is meaningless.

It's just a question. The penises were clean, the Coke in both cups is the same. Sounds pretty equivalent to me.

Just answer the question. Which would you prefer to drink?

Dude is a complete retard. Most people wouldn't care if someone skeeted on any of those things.

dilate

The coke in both cases is not the same. One, youve directly touched the liquid with penises. The other, the bottle, which has been cleaned and sanitized, may be made of material that has touched penises.
Also correlation does not imply causation. Correlations are helpful for figuring things out about data sometimes, and may even be a result of causation. But it does not imply it, there are pointless correlations that are completely unrelated, like the the increase of rock music and the increase of sales tax, or really the increase of sales tax and any other thing that is also increasing or decreasing at a similar rate. Just to name one possible correlation matrix.

No offense, but you should probably drop everything you're doing and try to focus on earning your GED.

>Also correlation does not imply causation.
Yeah, that's what I said. But I'm sure you'd look at a graph like this and say "oh well those are clearly unrelated, correlation does not imply causation!" as if that somehow invalidates the demonstrated fact that more sexual partners goes hand in hand with more mental problems.

Two roasties or two white knights on Jow Forums... honestly not sure which one is more likely.

Here, try again. Try to form an argument other than "I don't like what you're saying" (which isn't an argument, btdubs)

Attached: Female promiscuity 1.jpg (1223x1541, 368K)

First off, you just provided graphs. They could be outright fabricated or used with badly sampled data. Youve maybe heard of data sampling, no? Correlations are interesting to look into, but just noticing one isnt significant unless you can back it up further. Even if there is a legitimate correlation in what you posted, please prove to me it is causal and not the result of some confounding variable or pure luck.
There are processes to induce causation, btw. I suggest you learn a bit about statistics and equivalence (which ive noticed you now dropped) before you continue posting like an idiot.

Attached: 14516461_1698020057183404_7680674338822160946_n.jpg (480x325, 20K)

Clearly this comic was made pre-Pie upgrade. Bixby is actually decent now and does everything I would expect an assistant app to do. Hell, it even does stuff the others don't do without some kind of extra app: bixby vision. I can snap a picture of something and bixby will tell me where I can buy it, and if I'm in a store and use it bixby will tell me whether or not the place I'm at is the cheapest, and if it isn't the cheapest it'll tell me what store is cheaper and how to get there. To do that with Google you have to install Google Goggles, and half the time it won't even detect the item you're taking a picture of properly. Before Pie, I would just turn the bixby button the fuck off since all the third party apps for remapping it to do something else were fucking garbage, but now bixby is actually worth using (though funny enough, Samsmeg wised up and decided that you ought to be able to remap the bixby button without shitty third party apps so it's now a proper bixby feature to remap it to any app you like)

Honestly the only way the stock Samsung ROM could get better is if you could map the bixby button to be a camera shutter button while the volume rocker is mapped to zoom in and out. Having zoom and shutter physical buttons side by side on phones with actual decent cameras, and really good stock camera app with pro mode would make Galaxy S8 and onwards a passable stand-in for a real DSLR for non-professional photos (going on holiday and not wanting to take a whole camera bag, unexpected stuff you want a good photo of, etc)

You got corrected for saying something incorrect
your counter to this is to question
>How is "neo-Nazis" better?
Why? That isn't what the person said to you at all
stop typing with your feelings and reread what was said to you
you are adding more context to what was said

>They could be outright fabricated or used with badly sampled data.
>"Source: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995"
No?

>please prove to me it is causal and not the result of some confounding variable or pure luck.
That's the thing here, it doesn't matter if it's causal or due to a third (or multiple other) variables. The end result is what matters; women with more sex partners have higher incidences of depression, unhappiness, lower marriage stability, and (granted, this one is a given) more STDs.

If you pick two women at random, the one with more sex partners is more likely to have these issues. That's simply a fact. That's what correlation is.

So your arguments are
>that data might be false (it's not)
>causality is required for a correlation to have any meaning (it isn't)
and
>you are dumb

Try again.

Attached: 1521873670465.jpg (355x440, 130K)

If there was an assistant with cute anime voice and tsundere personality, I would use it in a heartbeat.

when will the japs save us from this American mediocrity

Only open sourcr ones
Oh right, theres not, I will pass

Lets take just one of the graphs. "Women who have more non marital sex partners are less likely to have a stable marriage". Notice this doesnt specify "pre marital". I think its fair to say that its likely people who cheat or have extra-marital affairs probably have more sexual partners than those who do not. What does this mean? Well, the confounding variable of the time of the non marital sex (specifically, does it overlap with marriage?) could be contributing in part if not entirely to this graph. Which would mean your deduction is false: only if the confounding condition is satisfy does it become correct.
There so many false conclusions and so much confirmation bias in your arguments its impossible to address it all. I mentioned a number of potential problems with your charts (maybe some are legitimate criticisms even if others arent, i was listing where data can go wrong which you clearly didnt get, since even the cdc can sample data with bias you know!) However i will leave you with this: you may notice patterns, and may even be able to try to predict things from those patterns (thats literally how machine learning works), but without a whole picture of the data the predictions are less accurate. What youre actually doing is guessing at the random "prevalence". One last example; lets say women with 15 partners are less likely to be happy, but only if theyve cheated. But 90% of women who have had 15 partners have cheated. Then you could say if youve had 15 partners, youre unhappy and youd be right 90% of the time. But youre still ignoring half of the problem, and not realizing that what youre actually predicting is the confounding variable. Really, the happiness in that case has nothing to do with number of sexual partners but instead with marital fidelity. Maybe that doesnt matter to you, but it is a significant distinction.

and then theres this fag
imagine being this clueless

Attached: 728e93656bdd60797ec544dfbcea6b27.jpg (543x1071, 500K)

It's not "better", nitwit. They were pointing out that you were incorrect, not saying that being a neo-nazi is 'less bad' than being a Nazi, just that Nazis do not exist in 2019. They were making sure you understood how asinine your assertion was, and correcting you with the proper term.

It could also be more geographical confounding variables for instance -- maybe city girls have more partners and are more depressed. In which case if i gave you 50 midwest girls who had a bunch of partners, youd likely be wrong most of the time by saying they arent happy. Perhaps that is a better example.

> 0% body fat
10% is alright.
> You know its unhealthy if a woman does not have fat there right? Its literally there for child bearing purposes
It's on the side of her waist reeeee.

Attached: 1556046275502.jpg (500x377, 49K)

Why are you ignoring the third picture with the clear fupa, which is the fatty part i was talking about in the first place?

>self-cleaning
>women need to douche their vaginas periodically or else they start smelling like a fish market on a long summer afternoon

Belly fat on a girl is nice if she doesn't have tiny tits.

Having sex with a skinny girl is like playing with a piece of wood.

Wow, youve bought into the douching meme. Douching actually isnt good for you, fool

Attached: 1463950035115.gif (700x704, 295K)

I just remembered that I did.
It was a fat whore and I could form a third boob with her belly fat. Which I did and rolled it back and forth, looking at how it moves as she was riding me. She probably didn't like it, but I didn't have anything better to do atm.

most neo nazis are

Jesus christ and you femcels wonder why guys make jokes about how you smell down there.

>but without a whole picture of the data the predictions are less accurate
How exactly would you get the "whole picture" here? Ask every woman alive? Do you really think the CDC did not consider and follow minimum standards for sampling a population here, they just chose to ignore it this once?

>Notice this doesnt specify "pre marital". I think its fair to say that its likely people who cheat
Nice, so now you're just guessing based on semantics that this study is examining cheater. Is that moving the goal posts? Regardless, you're trying to divert attention away from the fact here

>more premarital partners
means
>more likely to have a failed marriage, depression, etc

>But 90% of women who have had 15 partners have cheated.
Weren't you the one accusing the CDC of making up data? Like, literally two posts ago?

>maybe city girls have more partners and are more depressed
That doesn't explain why there's a positive correlation across the range of sexual partners.

If that were true, if living in a city is what caused women to be depressed AND have more sex partners... then how does that explain the fact that those with fewer sex partners are less depressed? If living in a city caused both, why is there a gradient?

And this was a sample of the entire US population. If the trend is this strong and obvious over that large of a population, outliers don't really matter much then, do they? That's like saying "Well 90% of Chevy vehicles require major maintenance within the first year, but one specific line of their trucks is reliable, therefore that other 90% doesn't matter."

Again, the causative relationship _does_not_matter. All that matters is they come together.

Let me give YOU an example. Let's say men who've been convicted of sex crimes are more likely to abuse their spouses.

Does it matter if being a sex criminal causes abuse, or if some other variable causes both? No. What matters is the presence of one means higher likelihood of the other.

>he thinks you drink Coke with your mouth

some people are the worst type of newfags

Attached: preview.mp4.jpg (680x384, 25K)

> fupa
How is that even attractive.

I'm not any of the roasties in this thread (I'm this guy )

But she's right, douching is not healthy. The *inside* of the vagina is self-cleaning in healthy women, it's the outside that you're supposed to clean to make sure there are no weird odors.

It's like... your ears. You use a q-tip on the outside part of your ear to keep it clean, but you don't shove it half an inch into your ear canal - your ear naturally pushes wax out, keeping itself clean.

>T. Has never actually been with a woman
If it stinks she has bad genes or she's a retard thats jamming shit like jolly ranchers in her pussy and letting bacteria fester.

>Does it matter if being a sex criminal causes abuse, or if some other variable causes both? No. What matters is the presence of one means higher likelihood of the other.
Let me specify here. Does it matter *in the context of looking for someone to date or marry* if being a sex criminal causes abuse.

Yes there is value in figuring out the causative relationship (if there is one) between these factors, for correction on a societal level. Figuring out how to make life better for everyone.

But on an individual level, all that matters is what signs are indicative of which problems. More premarital partners is an indicator for depression, less marriage stability, etc. Those women are to be avoided. Just as you would (and should) do with, say, a convicted violent felon if you're hoping to not be abused. It's simply a matter of lowering your probability of a bad outcome.

Technology.

Attached: 1318880647671.jpg (420x604, 80K)

stfu faggot

Theres more people in cities; geographical features could be confounding your conclusion. That would explain the positive correlation, idk what youre on about. If people in cities have more partners and are more depressed, that literally explains that.
>do you think its possible the cdc did not consider...
Sampling methods have evolved. And yes, this is from 1995. Its possible that they didnt have good surveying methods, or maybe the quantification for happiness has changed since then. Do you see where theres so many aspects you are just not considering?
The reason i brough up extra marital affairs was to show the confounding variables. In this instance i could give you a woman whos had 50 partners and one whos had 20. Maybe the one who had 20 cheated but the one with 50 didnt. In this case, ita actually more likely the woman with 50 partners is more happiness and has a more stable marriage. I dont know if thats the case, but its a possible confounder which would lead to a lack of precision in your predictions. Im not saying it is the case, if you actually use your brain to read my words that should be evident. Youre the one assuming its definitively premarital.
>the presence of one means higher likelihood of the other
Well, no. Go back to school kid. Learn probability. If theyre independent variables, then their probabilities are independent. Even if theres a correlation, their probabilities are independent if theyre independent. The question you have to answer is, does the correlation relate to causation or some other form of dependency at all? With confounding variables, you can only apply your prediction to populations that follow that correlation, with true dependence the trend will probably be a bit more consistent.
Again, because youre not getting this: im not saying that any of this is definitively true or untrue. Im saying good data science requires truly analyzing these things.

I dont really care if you find that attractive. I like healthy women, but it seems anorexic non-menstruating (maybe even prepubescent?) girls are more your speed

>tfw no crippled gf with a heart of gold and desire to make people smile
>You will never roll her through the grocery store and have her steal a kiss when you bend down to get something from the bottom shelf
>You will never help her into bed as she smiles at you with pure love in her eyes
>You will never get the best parking spots

Life is suffering.

Attached: 1550112251187.jpg (265x259, 22K)

Do that with booze for an EXTRA fun time.

Is that varka?

I am a Nazi too, user

>but its a possible confounder which would lead to a lack of precision in your predictions
Do you... not know what a correlation is? You seem to be under the impression that causation is the only way a correlation can be considered valid or useful. That is, obviously, not how it works.

>Well, no. Go back to school kid. Learn probability.
Hot take. So two factors being correlated, doesn't actually mean they're correlated... Interesting. So what does correlation mean, exactly?

>If theyre independent variables, then their probabilities are independent.
Then the correlation wouldn't exist, now would it? Higher number of partners means higher incidence of depression... yet you're saying that that doesn't actually apply, somehow.

What this looks like to me is you took a single semester intro to statistics class, latched onto "correlation does not imply causation" to mean that correlation is a fundamentally meaningless aspect of statistics.

>The question you have to answer is, does the correlation relate to causation or some other form of dependency at all?
No, I do not. That is not the goal here. See the explanation here . The causative relationship DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter. No matter how much you say it does and try to hand-wave away the demonstrated, factual correlation, it does not matter. What matters is the correlation. One factor (number of sex partners) is positively correlated with another (depression, failed marriage, etc).

Presence of one necessarily implies higher likelihood of the other. That is literally what correlation means.

>Again, because youre not getting this: im not saying that any of this is definitively true or untrue. Im saying good data science requires truly analyzing these things.
Good data science requires understand what correlation is and what it means. Value can be gained from correlations, regardless of a causative link being statistically proven.

This is what I n̠̼͉̂̐̿̀͝é̥̖̮̤̘̬̜e̗̘̠̰͚̫̜͌̈́̓̑d̡̳̬̦̩̖.

>start thread ostensibly about personal assistants but with Jow Forumsbait pic
>nazis
>bellies
>penis and vagina
next up: BUTTSEX

Attached: nklj.png (883x884, 1.83M)

First of all fuck off both of you. This is not data science. This is econometrics or Psychometrics depending on who is doing the analysis.

Don't lump my field in with you code monkeys who wouldn't know proper experiment design if it bit you on the ass.

lmoa virgin data scientist desperately trying to get chad and stacy's attention when they're in the middle of a heated intellectual discussion

Attached: 1553802999054.gif (600x431, 739K)

I don't think you know what correlation is.

Like the other user said. Two variables can be completely independent, but with a confounding variable you can prove statistcaly significant correlation regardless.

He even gave some decent examples. But here is a very simple one to help you understand.

Time is linear. The amount of time you spend on this earth has a positive linear relationship with how many people you have partnered with.

Being old makes you sad. Being old has a positive linear relationship with time.

If you were to measure the correlation between number of sexual partners and how old you are that would also show a positive correlation.

Infact if you look at the side of the graph posted here, , you will see that this table includes women from ages 15-44.

So its entirely likely that all these charts are measuring is the progress of time. No actual relationship may exist if we were to perform the same correlation test on all woman at the same age.

So if you try to follow this at an individual level you will essentially be turning down many women who are actually quite happy, but happened to have the same amount of sexual partners as the average xanax popping 37 year old single mom.

I hope your trolling.

Only if a nice male voice is available.

I didn't see the post, but the answer is probably yes.

Thighs you fags

Attached: 1556016149713.jpg (328x301, 17K)

We use Alexa for managing meetings at Amazon and it works reasonably well. Outside of work, SHIT no.

Ever seen the webm of the woman crushing a melon between her thighs? The version without sound doesn't do it justice.

Oh yes, it is heavenly

Attached: aZcY8PS.jpg (1280x3315, 1.41M)

If those are Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and Bixby, what's Google Assistant (the only one without a name)?

The fuck is skeeting?

spill yogurt.

Botnet.

trolling is a art.

>Stonetoss
Get a look at this faggot.

Yeah but would that mean it's like a cute robot anime girl pretending to be a real girl, while everyone ignores the creepily personal information she somehow knows about everyone?