hacking: works

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents crime
Weight: 0.63
, computer network
Weight: 0.57
, activity
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.55
, breach
Weight: 0.53
Siblings computer virus
Weight: 0.35
, hack
Weight: 0.33
, stealing
Weight: 0.32
, sexual harassment
Weight: 0.32
, piracy
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
works 1.00
work 0.79

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(stealing, work)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(piracy, work)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(hack, work)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(piracy, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(piracy, work)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(hack, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(hack, work)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(stealing, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(stealing, work)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(hacking, works)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(hacking, work)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
Typical(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(hacking, work)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hacking, work)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Salient(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(hacking, work)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Salient(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(hacking, works)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(piracy, work)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(stealing, work)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(hacking, works) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(hack, work)