Okay, I know I keep saying this, but, hey, guess what? It’s still really easy! Did you know that happened? I did not.
Look, it’s either this or a lot of Tweets about being! happy! This annoys a smaller number of people.
Posted in personal, relationships on November 18, 2008 | 1 Comment »
Okay, I know I keep saying this, but, hey, guess what? It’s still really easy! Did you know that happened? I did not.
Look, it’s either this or a lot of Tweets about being! happy! This annoys a smaller number of people.
Posted in Uncategorized on November 13, 2008 | 2 Comments »
M ran Blotto through Genderanalyser, and apparently last night got a 64% chance that it was written by a woman. Which is, you know, not accurate. Of course, this morning I’m seeing a 51% chance it’s a man, with the caveat that it’s “quite gender neutral”.
The blinding accuracy of the initial experience, of course, meant that I had to run everyone else’s blogs through, and apparently all my friends are gender-role challenging people, because the success rate on this program is crap.
Somewhaturban: 57% chance of a man, but quite gender neutral. Wrong! Also, I talk about feelings! A lot! How much more girly can you be?
Tikimama: 60% chance of a man, but quite gender neutral. Wrong! And she talks about being pregnant! In general, this is a good clue that one is female.
Tiki Drinks and Indigo Firmaments: 66% chance of a woman. Wrong! And he is responsible for the above-mentioned pregnancy, so there is evidence and everything.
Trader Tiki: 63% chance of a woman. Wrong! Or else Sara is confused, and that woman needs some serious hormone therapy.
Lawnchair Vigilante: 61% chance of a woman. Correct. But more than 61% female.
So 5 of 6 were wrong at least once, though I suppose two attempts hedge by saying “quite gender neutral”. That’s an 83% failure rate on a question that you have a 50/50 chance of randomly guessing correctly. I hate to be rash, but I’m thinking that this program may need some additional tinkering.
However, it’s a fun timesink.