Random
Source Code
Random
A "direct correlation" would mean a correlation of 1. A correlation of 1 is as high as it gets. So I highly doubt the correlation between porn and WHATEVER is 1. A correlation of .7 is HIGH in terms of correlation (apparently). So high that Jordan Peterson cites the correlation when he's talking about the relationship between wealth and sexual selection success. But don't feel bad. You're not the only one using correlation wrong!
Hym "They need to retitle that video 'feminine woman DOESN'T DEBUNK FUCKING ANYTHING.' Oh shit... Have I been using correlation wrong? Oh shit! That means the correlation between fat cocks and sexual selection success can be HIGHER than .3! HOLY SHIT! I've google that word live 12 different times! How am I just now getting that!? Shit, it could even be higher than .7! What's more, there can be an inverse correlation between 2 things. You could have a correlation between fat cocks and reproductive success that it like 1 AND a correlation between baby dicks and reproductive success that is like -1. What do the studies say? Is there a study? What's the correlation between fat cock and success? It's high. I bet you 1 million dollars it's higher than .7! WE'RE BACK IN HERE! CRITICAL FAT-COCK THEORY! I look like an idiot for using it wrong but WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS is that I COULD BE MORE RIGHT THAN I THOUGHT I WAS! I could be MORE RIGHT THAN JORDAN!"
something that coach ferrick keeps screaming at people when they dont listen. Basically means put your freaking seat belt on
"ANYTHING NOT BELTED WILL FLY!!!"
Question is ask someone if anything important is not functioning as it has to or to ask if anything is urgent that's needs attention
is there anything burning?
A foolish person trying their best to lie. If anybody says that, you know they're lying, no matter the context.
"Hey dad, how do I get a penis out of a Cola bottle? Not that I did that or anything."
"I have no idea son, come down here, I don't want to shout."
"Nononono, I don't need to get down, it's fine."
The original owner would and is 'gravity' by scientific order of the creation of 'things'/big bang. No one can realistically negotiate the transfer of owning with 'gravity'. So the second owner would be the 'stars' and their photons, until the last photon from the 'star' has been exhausted and no longer exists as the 'star' the ownership can be declared from the living being who is the first currently living being.
However the ownership realistically can / almost never can be declared by any living being, because where there is photons there is the possibility of life. Unless the planet, rock and any other debris in space that hasn't been hit by any photons by the 'star'. Known as the void, the black holes and the space pockets that no light can reach.
Human or any other living being cannot own the 'bodies because of the photons, and the microscopic cells that were transferred from the last owner 'gravity', then 'stars'. Cell's that can not talk unless they evolved to talk, they cannot represent all of the cells in the 'body'. Finally reaching the argument of consciousness is the temporary owner of nothing, unless it tries to own anything, it will kill itself, because gravity exist anywhere, and photons can exist anywhere in the living zone's. (Unless they are no longer bound by 'death').
Jorge you know you can't 'Own / Owning & Anything related to it. anything', because photons and gravity owns you! LUL
John: What kind of music do you like?
Shane: Anything except country