 So we're going to start off with just a quick recap of the from us on the panels that we led this morning and afternoon. So I'm going to start off with our initial panel on practical translation of risk in the public arena with our NOAA representatives. So some of the main takeaways that I got from from that work was, well, we saw some good examples of how different messages are needed at different times. And it really occurred to me that a lot of the messages went from much more probabilistic when the uncertainty was high at earlier times. And as we get closer to landfall when our uncertainty increases or uncertainty decreases, however you want to look at it, those products do become a little bit more deterministic, at least in their communication nature, although they are still derived from probabilistic information. And this example is hurricane warnings. But that really highlighted to me how uncertainty really does underlies all forecasts. There are no 100 percent certain forecasts and those that are 100 percent certain nobody cares about. I can 100 percent tell you that the temperature will be between 20 and 100 degrees today. That's not a forecast that we want. So if we're talking about quantities that we actually are interested in, we're going to have to deal with uncertainty. And the higher the severity of those events typically means the higher the uncertainty we're dealing with. They're linked inherently. We learned that transitioning social science research to operations requires a thoughtful approach that includes co-development, evaluation, and really an iteration of those processes. So it's deeply entangling thoughtfully, entangling disciplines in a way that lets us get to where we need to go in terms of developing risk communication products that are accurate and useful. Research tells us that people make better decisions with uncertainty information, but also we hear from practitioners that we need more simple information. Gina really made this point. Really, it's not a binary situation. We need all the types. We need a spectrum. And I think that was a really interesting point by Gina, that we still need to study this. We still need to understand and know how these different messaging strategies, when they're needed, with whom and why. And also just the idea of this public-private partnerships could provide so many opportunities for research. I mean, we've got, we saw some great examples of how they can help with message dissemination, but there's a sort of untapped potential here for getting some of these research questions that we have answered by large groups of people in real time. And it would be really exciting, although I understand there are a lot of limitations. A lot of lawyers probably involved in that kind of work. But that's just a really exciting piece. So I had two panels that I was responsible for moderating. One was the looking when we did the technology demonstrations, which included wireless emergency alerts, HAWS alerts, and social media discussions. And we saw across those three talks a lot of emphasis on personalization and how we can personalize information through the use of visuals, geo-targeting to personal devices, to our cell phones, to the TVs in our homes, which are very personal to us, especially if you're watching a Super Bowl or a Taylor Swift or something. And to our cars, which are extremely personal. In some cases, those are the things that you live in. And we also see how these technologies are making messaging much more specific, highly targeted geographically, and location aware across all of these different technologies. I was impressed by how each of the groups, each of the people who spoke, talked about taking into consideration how people consume information, use information, and need information, and centering on the individual consumer and their needs for information. And also the social media, that it's become incredibly fragmented, and we are going to need to consider how to navigate that in the future. And then I helped to moderate this last panel, and I have so many notes it's hard to even comb through, but I want to just highlight a couple of quotes that really stand out to me. The first one is something that Joseph was talking about, about migrants, and how we haven't spent a lot of time talking about these communities that are kind of hidden. And the importance of thinking about people who have access needs in varieties of ways. And in this case, migrants are afraid to access things. And thinking about that very broadly. I wrote down the word semantic satiation. It's a new word for me, but thinking about how we become so accustomed to hearing words, they may not be meaningful to us, and that's in contrast with words that are so filled with jargon that they can't be translated. And then also I wrote down, Sherman, what you said about thinking about, even though I was less safe, I was more certain. And the importance of recognizing that certainty for some people is overriding the safety that they might be going into. And that was very powerful. So I have the pleasure of summarizing the messages from Wendy Lace and Jessica. And Wendy re-emphasized and clarified in very simple language the importance of using simple, clear language that people understand. And her main point was that you need to talk with your intended audiences to learn what they think. And this echoes everything that we've heard from our previous panels and from Andrea and Jeanette. There's really no substitution for it. Lace focused on a number of things that ultimately cause ways in which our communication, visual communications can cause errors, especially in communicating uncertainty. And talked as an example about borders on designs and how intervals create categories. And then people understand these categories as having meaning. And the general statement that she concluded with is that convention misalignments cause errors. So it's really important for us to understand what those conventions are. How do we make meaning of visualizations in the real world? What kinds of visual perceptions do we use on a conventional basis? And then how are the products that are being created aligning with those? This goes back again to understanding audiences. And Jessica then teed up very closely with what Lace had talked about to talk about how people understand uncertainty in a variety of ways in visual communications. And one of the examples she gave was as if optimization and how people use mental shortcuts to suppress uncertainty. So it's an intuitive and heuristic way of processing uncertainty communications, even when they're presented in extremely creative ways. I was really impressed with the number and variety of visual communications of uncertainty that we saw from these two really stellar researchers. So they both brought home again the importance of understanding how people understand and make meaning of these visualizations and what they're doing with them and raise a lot of questions about how people use heuristics and how we can work with the heuristics that people use in their thinking as opposed to against the heuristics, which was clarified as something that's pretty much hopeless. So the closing point here was that visuals are extremely powerful and it's important to start collaborating with social scientists very early. And a side point that was made by Lace is that you need to understand the technologies you're working with when you're visualizing as well. I was talking with somebody about her point about the band, the way that uncertainties came across on the internet. And you have to understand if you have a strong technical understanding of what's going on there, you can actually change the way you're visualizing so you don't get that panning effect, it turns out. Anyway, so another, this again makes the point that it's extremely important to partner with different populations, different audiences, different decision makers, and with different, if you're going to integrate the science, which we hope we will and we think that advances what we're doing to integrate different kinds of sciences and even among the different kinds of technology sciences and social sciences as well. So is Gabrielle with us? No, okay. So I think we are ready with that to move into our roundtable, which should provide a really, really exciting way of integrating across the two days.