 We are right now in a geopolitical recession and what causes that is actually very simple. You create institutions and architecture and when you do, it aligns with the balance of power and the values and priorities of the countries in the global order at that time. Over time, the balance of power changes, but the institutions don't, they're sticky. And over time, those institutions become so far removed from the new evolving balance of power and different priorities and different values that the institutions erode. They start to break, they become delegitimized. I'll give you an example. When the United States first put together the United Nations, the permanent vetoes in the Security Council were given, were allocated on the basis of the victors of World War II. So of course, the Soviets were at the table. The Germans and the Japanese were not. In 2022, the Russians are led by a war criminal. They're not here at the World Economic Forum and the Americans want to throw them out of the G20. Meanwhile, the Germans and the Japanese, who are the two major economies that are most committed to the rules and precepts of the United Nations Chartered, a multilateralism to rule of law, cannot be given permanent seats in the Security Council because they lost World War II. Now, that's a stupid reason, but that's what happens when the world changes and institutions don't. Inability in the unwillingness to adapt institutions inside a country to reflect a changing balance of power of that population will lead to a lot of anger on the part of people that are left behind. When we talk about disruptive technologies, climate change and the pandemic and the Russians invading Ukraine, we're talking about crises that are global and they're crises of scale, they're crises of urgency. And so they do lead to, they compel serious response. When you ask me, what are the institutions that we need to respond to these challenges, I say a lot of those institutions need to be built. Another example, when I was growing up, the most important disruptive technology that we needed to contain were nuclear weapons. We were concerned that these weapons would destroy the planet if we did not stop them from being proliferated to other governments, to rogue states, to non-governmental actors. And we did stop them over the course of 80 years. Now today, we have a lot of other very dangerous technologies that are being developed, lethal autonomous weapons, for example, cyber weapons, for example, algorithms for disinformation. And yet we have absolutely no architecture, not only to prevent them from being proliferated, but even to understand the nature of the problem itself. So for example, we need an intergovernmental panel for artificial intelligence, just like on climate change, where every year all of these experts get together and they say, you know what, we have 1.2 degrees centigrade of warming. And here's the impact on the planet. You can't effectively respond to a crisis until you all agree on what the crisis is. How did you create such a body for climate change? And the answer is it required incentive. And the mobilization was not going to get done until people recognized that it was a serious and urgent problem. I wish it were different. I wish that we could create these institutions out of whole cloth. But the reality is that people are busy and they're focused on their own lives. And understandably so. But we also know that you get the best out of humanity when you're challenged. So for instance, mothers don't really want a four-day working week. What they want is different, flexible time at the beginning and the end of the day. So I think it's really important to start this conversation about what is predictable flexibility. A four-day working week is a kind of step in the right direction. But it isn't necessarily the kind of end goal, is what I would say. My work is in communities where generally people have got low incomes. You know, I've worked a lot with people with very precarious work. And I think the biggest challenge for people is to have predictable work. Because if you don't have predictable work, you can't plan care. You can't even plan what food to buy and you might be on a low income and this is a kind of big struggle. And I think that we've confused the idea of flexibility, which is a good thing, being able to kind of work in different ways, from different locations, with the idea of predictability. Some of the most successful gig work changes have been where people can organise with the consumers of those services and kind of build different relationships and begin to argue for something different. So it is true that you could be a worker and you could, you know, in your company, sort of come together and ask. I think one of the things that we're also looking for now is where are the companies, where are the business leaders who are almost going against the logic of their peers to begin to set the new norms of this century. Because absolutely this is going to happen and the rewards will come to those leaders of businesses who step up first and begin to kind of change those norms for their workers. Thank you.