 Precisely, I guess to say, I think that we don't do as good a job as we could explaining about all the things that mathematics does, and that's why people think it's just eight dimensional topology. In other words, what you said is mathematics is kind of, if it's esoteric, it's math, if it's not esoteric, it's not math. That's kind of what you said. And I think we don't do the best job as a community of explaining, you know, it's a cop-out to say, I do algebraic geometry, I can't explain it to my friend's husband, right? Who's an accountant or, I mean, who's, you know, I don't know what, an architect, whatever they are. Right? You know, that's, I think we have to learn how to talk about what we do in such a way. I mean, look, they write articles in the New York Times about string theory. For love of God, we should be able to talk about what we do in a way that's compelling and interesting. All right? Sorry, my physicist friends. A couple more questions. Maybe. Yeah. But what was your question? The purple. Oh, right. Yeah. So you mean, all right. So you're talking about the simulation going on. Yeah. So I understand what you're asking now. So this simulation in no way tried to maintain equal population. This one is just an illustrative thing on the map to show how the algorithm runs. So I did not put in rejection based on, that's something to do. It's a plan to do. But, you know, she was only willing to work on it for two nights. So that's what I got. I clearly need to do something better. Yeah. Yeah. So there's two answers to that question. The first one is that's the basis of Alan Fries and Wes Pegdon's analysis, essentially. So that, the answer is yes. The other answer, but the answer is we had actually done some, and they have a theorem about that. We don't have a theorem. They have a very nice theorem, in fact. Otherwise, I'm getting the spinning ball of death. Ah, snap. All right. So I'll just have to say with words. That little plot that's been, ah, yes. So here we did an analysis where we took, we only sampled in a neighborhood of the maps that they use. So we did a local analysis and we asked, you know, I think Wes, I think was the one who said this to me once. He said it was a nice test, right? So you're in a cab. The cab drops you off at your hotel and says, you know, that restaurant right next door is one of the best restaurants in the city. You should really eat there. And you go there and you eat it and you're like, meh, huh, not so good. And you're wondering, is this because none of the restaurants in the city are good, or is it just that the cab, this is the cab driver's sister and, you know, wanted me to go to this restaurant. So then you check all the other restaurants right next to the hotel and they're all better than that restaurant. Now, you haven't checked every restaurant in the city, but you have a pretty good idea that that's not the best restaurant now in the city, right? So that's the same kind of thing here. You could check nearby maps and ask how typical were they. And that's exactly what we did. So the top one says, I haven't looked at this graph in a while. It's the back of my deck. So we took the 2012 maps, which are the blue dots, and we let only looked in the neighborhood. And what we got is a histogram is markedly, see how it shifted downward and the 2012 over here from the red dots, the histogram shifts downward. So all the ones in the neighborhood look a lot nicer than theirs. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So, yes. So in that sense, we have looked at stability, and it's a really smart question. I would not at all characterize it as a possibly dumb question. I think it's a very natural thing to do, and I think it's another part of this story. OK. So I think that maybe we should save the remaining questions for Jonathan just informally, and let's thank him again for an amazing talk.