{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025065963060686015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013192612137203166, 'mean_word_length': 5.2727272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ALL PROBABILISTIC METHODS ASSUME A SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION FOR PROBABILITY

ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING, if overlooked, observations made by the great mathematician I.J. Good is that we lose nothing from a purely mathematical point of view if we choose to interpret all probabilities subjectively. “[E]very physical probability,” Good noted, “can be interpreted as a subjective probability or as a credibility.”1 This is a fascinating observation, because it raises the question why mathematicians and other scientists have spent so much time trying to establish that probability is a measure of something “objective” in the world if it has no bearing on the actual mathematics of probability. Why all the fuss over something that is mathematically irrelevant?