 I want to say a few things about how our platform is unique from the more editorial perspective, which is the piece that I'm responsible for and the one that is near and dear to my heart. So as we moved through 2020 with the pandemic heating up and tons of preprints getting posted, as I told you, and COVID research getting fast tracked by journals, you know, some concerns started emerging. Actually, a lot of concerns about whether this trend is a healthy one for our information landscape. And I think some of these concerns were warranted and I don't dismiss them. Instead, I try to think of ways that we can improve on our policies, our procedures, and our product, the platform, to meet these concerns head on instead of just dismissing them and saying, oh, that's not a problem at all. And I'll show you what I mean. So the first level of oversight is our screening protocol. I've mentioned this a couple of times. It has to go through, preprint has to go through a screening process on our end. We're not in anything goes platform. We have a trained team of screeners who filter out submissions that are fairly pseudoscientific, that are ethically dubious, or ones that could potentially, you know, be dangerous or contain patient identifiers. But we don't routinely block the posting of papers based on poor methodology, you know, other flaws, poor opaque reporting, specious conclusions. So we have plenty of those. We also have plenty of great solid research. So preprint servers are already not passive hosts for research, right? But the last years have taught us that we may be able to play a bit more of an active role in ensuring that people at minimum don't come away with wildly misinformed ideas about a preprint.