Good.

In that case, I would like to point out the following:

The word 'hazard' is a transitive verb and must take a direct object. For example, 'wear' -- another transitive verb -- is never used without an object, as in "I like to wear."

Transitive verbs without objects leave one asking "what?"

Take, for example, the recent riposte:

"I would like to hazard a more pointless exercise for anyone who has anything better to do with their idle time."

In this sentence, the object of 'hazard' is a more pointless exercise. One is left wondering what more pointless exercise the poster is going to hazard. None is given, and, in such cases, the statement itself must stand in, by default, for the missing object.

This is unintentionally and disastrously ironic: the more pointless exercise the poster hazards is his own criticism of that exercise.

I appreciate that this is a forum about lexicon, and not syntax, but I thought it was worth mentioning.