This seems right up my alley, thanks for sharing!

(Though there may be an argument to be made about how insular philosophers are even in this narrow task)

I think the core philosophical project is important (to understand the conceptual structure and normativity of trust), but then, after philosophers notice that we use the word in so many different contexts, I feel that they brush this off too easily to focus on only one of those contexts.

My compromise solution is to find all academics equally annoying, except for my buddies.

Guilty as well - line by line.

Surely all those hacks will promptly sign this letter.

My thought experiments are always successful in confirming my intuitions.

Surely this must be just a coincidence.

I find it quite baffling that anyone (much less some people who supposedly should know better) would buy the statements of that letter at face value, independently of everything else surrounding it. Alas, here we are.

Yes, it is! One of the reports was so good that I felt kinda embarrassed that I have never written one like it before.

Guilty, I'm sorry. I'm listening and learning.

.14? You're a legend! I'm lucky if I hit .10 any given season.

I mean, doesn't the death of the host pose a problem to the pathogen? (As in it depends on the host living and going around to be able to reproduce and spread around)