 Oh, here's another one. This is a fun one. Has objectivism influenced your jiu-jitsu? Oh, yeah. Yeah, no question. Brazilian jiu-jitsu, I should say, is just it's such a fascinating thing because it's this martial art that I'll be brief about it. But in essence, what you're doing is you're trying to figure out how a smaller weaker person can beat a bigger stronger person, which is a very difficult thing to do. And the basic strategy of jiu-jitsu is, if you can somehow latch on to the person where you can grapple with them via that range, that actually for various reasons is the most efficient way to do it for a whole set of reasons. And it amounts to body chess. People often describe it that way. And it's got so many principles and it's got different hierarchies of principles because they're like a couple of basic principles and they're derivative principles of that. And then there's a concrete application that's got this incredible hierarchy. And then the hierarchy really, you are rewarded in your thinking to the extent you have a good conceptual hierarchy because it ultimately translates into your ability to execute. And you have rationalists who are really good at saying, generally, you really do. And then you have empiricists who kind of have technique, but they don't understand the why behind the what. And then you have people who are really integrative. And some of the people who have taught me the most about jiu-jitsu are actually objectivists. And people, but it's a fascinating field because it's so conceptual. And probably the leading guy today as a teacher, a guy named John Danahur out of New York City, he was getting his PhD in philosophy at Columbia when he decided to become a full-time jiu-jitsu teacher. And even though he's in contemporary philosophy, he's a super rational guy. He's always talking about mutual self-interest, mutual benefit, and just super clear and very principled. I got the chance to meet him once and to take a lesson. And it's just fascinating how it's no accident that the clear-thinking philosopher is one of the leaders right now. So yeah, it influences a lot. And then I think that one thing with objectivism to think about is objectivism is a proper noun, which refers to Ayn Rand's understanding of a lot of fundamental issues. But it's possible for people to come at those understandings to the extent they're true. Those are just true things. Now they're hard to figure out. But people will come to aspects of those themselves. And it's good to see that when they do come up with themselves, it works very well. So some of these people think, oh, objectivism, it supports objectivism as a guide to life when people use aspects of it. And then to that extent, their life goes well. Sometimes people have the idea, well, unless people are familiar with objectivism as a proper noun, then they're just bound to live in an earthly hell. But now that's not exactly if they can get all of those insights, which we haven't seen anyone else who can come up with anything like that on their own. Obviously, it's going to be a lot better than getting relatively speaking bits and pieces.