 Both Comesaña and Bishop focus on the idea that all epistemologists face a version of the generality problem. A related but distinct idea is to insist that versions of the generality problem crop up everywhere, not just in epistemology. This response has been developed recently by Goldman (forthcoming), who points out that we regularly evaluate the reliability of all sorts of processes, not all of them cognitive. Goldman illustrates with the example of Geraldine, who enjoys shooting hoops at her local gym. Geraldine’s performance is a function of many factors, including how she focuses her eyes on the target hoop, how she grips the ball, how she selects an angle to hit the backboard, etc. Now consider Geraldine’s friend, Henry, who watches as Geraldine consistently sinks more than 80% of her shots, using roughly the technique each time. Henry may not be able to provide a detailed specification of Geraldine’s hoop-shooting process. Nonetheless, it seems he is in a position to conclude that Geraldine uses some process type that is responsible for her frequent attainment of her athletic goal, and that this process is fairly reliable.