 what I find really interesting and obviously we can talk about the rise of AI and how it folds into this technology piece, but it does feel, I mean, even internally in our company, when we have a new project, we spin up, you know, you have this tracking system, all these to-dos, all these meetings pre-populated and scheduled, and it feels like we have a pretty good handle from a transparency situation on what everyone else is doing, but not really when it comes to the actual work in knowledge work. A lot of it, again, okay, did you get that outline? Did we do this one discrete thing, that quick action item, and it feels like transparency, but it's really not. But even what you described, what you do already is 200% more transparent than most knowledge work firms, right? Because I think, especially when you're technology-adjacent, there's some better practices going on, right? Because if you look at a lot of this comes out of software development, you know, in software development, it's knowledge work, but it also has one foot in the industrial, because you're also producing a product on a timeline. So software development, they're more likely to experiment with more structured ways of thinking about workload, and so you get these agile methodologies come out of that sector, where we do track work. Here they are. It's a card, and it's on a board, and it doesn't just exist on an individual person's plate. Here's the things that the project needs to get done, but each person maybe is just doing a sprint on one thing at a time, and then those ideas have percolated out some from peer software development to a lot of other technology-adjacent areas, but most knowledge work doesn't even have that. So there's no notion of, here's what we're working on, and here's what individuals within the team are working on from this greater pile. In most knowledge work, everything needs to be done is distributed among individuals. So it'll come in somewhere, someone will think of something, a client will bother someone about something, and now it's obligation hot potato. This is on my plate. I don't want this to be on my plate. How can I get this on someone else's plate? Let me just send off a quick email. Hey, can you look into this? Now that email has implicitly put it on your plate, so now it's in your amorphous pile of things you have to do, and then maybe you bounce another thing off to someone else. And so everything sits on people's plates as opposed to, as you might see in like a peer software play. No, no, tasks sit assigned to the team until an individual takes them. And this is not just a semantic difference. It's a functional difference because once work is assigned to an individual, they have to pay the overhead tax. And so taking these 20 tasks and spreading them among four people, you've just made those four people's lives much worse because now they have to keep track of all four of these things. Whereas you'd be better off saying, no, no, these are over here. Just work on this. When you're done with this, we'll get something else. Like that is a better way of doing this. It's not how most knowledge work operates. Well, with that, there's this funny meme that's being popularized right now around shareholder value. And it's a lot of knowledge workers posting about what they're doing to derive shareholder value. And it just makes me think this concept of slow is so antithetical to shareholder value because every company wants to move faster, grow bigger, and deliver for their shareholders. Yes. This is an interesting dilemma that I've really face looked into in my work over the years is a lot of these practices from an organizational perspective makes the organization less effective. So you're producing less shareholder value if everyone has 20 things on their plate and you have to email all day long and people are getting their work done in the evening. This is not, and we're going to be very technical about it. It is not a great way to get a good return on your investment in your neuronal capital. We're investing in a bunch of brains. We put a lot of money into this. We have to create buildings that are air conditioned and pay salary, do all these things just so we can get brains to add value to information. That's the fundamental act of knowledge work. When we work this way, it's not a great return on that investment. So it's low shareholder return on value. Yet we don't see a lot of change to it. So there's this paradox. One of the explanations that I find somewhat convincing comes from an economic historian named Alfred Chandler. He wrote this book called The Visible Hand back in the 1970s. He won all the award, Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award. He got a Bancroft Prize, a lot of awards. And he was looking at the rise of big companies as a thing that really didn't exist until post railroads. He was looking at the rise of big companies. And he said one of the things that emerges out of this is what he called managerial capitalism where it's not just here's a relatively small company, here's the boss, he owns it. He's there and he knows everything that's going on and is relatively small what they do. He said small companies are very susceptible to market signals. So if you run your small company better than another one, you all compete them. Big companies with huge collections of managers, he argued, they're more immune, their internal operation is more immune from market forces. So even if it's an ineffective way to run the company, there's other things you optimize for in terms of a big company that's different than just what's the best way to do this. Things like stability, avoiding risk. I mean, these are the things that become more important. So you can persist with a pretty ineffective way of working even though it should in theory be affecting your bottom line. In modern knowledge work with these large managerial companies, there's just a buffer from the market pressure that would say let's try something different.