{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035130718954248366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032679738562091504, 'mean_word_length': 4.671296296296297, '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}}
Two Cheers for Tolerance

Tolerance has much to do with giving the benefit of the doubt to others. I'm reminded of a story here: the philosopher K. J. Shah, who died recently told me this story. He was a pupil of the great Wittgenstein in Cambridge during the 1940s, a favourite pupil. Apparently Shah and Wittgenstein used to go for long walks together, observing a rule laid down by Wittgenstein: that there was to be no conversation. Clearly, Wittgenstein was not very tolerant of conversation, especially with his favourite pupils. He was eccentric in this respect, but he taught Shah an important lesson in tolerance during one of these walks on the edge of silence. Breaking the rule of silence, Wittgenstein asked Shah if he was a Muslim. Shah said, 'No.' Wittgenstein said, 'Are you a Hindu?' Shah said, 'No, I'm a Jain: neither Hindu nor Muslim.' Wittgenstein knew something about Jainism from the Indian philosopher Surendranath Dasgupta, who had lived in Cambridge many years before. Wittgenstein said to Shah, 'Isn't it true that Jains believe that the enlightened ones after their death all gather together on a rock and meditate?' Now young Shah in those years was a typical, intolerant freethinker, intolerant