 Hi, I'm Caroline. I'm a second year MPP student. Thank you so much for being here. I'm curious what you think, because you talked a lot about how judges need to consider their context and the consequences of their decisions. And so I was wondering, what do you think is the best way, I guess, from a policy perspective of how to get judges to be more conscious of those contexts and consequences, as well as biases? There's so many biases. And I don't remember the source, but there was some kind of study that showed that judges are more likely to give harsher sentences in the hour before lunch because they're hungry. I mean, that's human. There's genuine, right. There's genuine human biases. And then one additional part B question is, if you have any thoughts on whether judges being appointed or voted in, what your thoughts are on the consequences of that on judges' decisions. Girl, if you come up with a solution to that, you can run this school. As far as appointed versus elected, I will tell you, I have been through an appointment process. I was appointed to my position first, and then I was elected. And then I was involved in an appointment process to be a federal district court judge. And I will say, for me personally, election was very different because I could work my butt off and go around Franklin County, Ohio, tell people what I thought, what I stood for, and hope that they voted for me. Now, the appointment process felt like way more inside baseball. But one of the arguments for the appointment process is the fact that the electorate tends not to vote for judges. And so sometimes, some would argue that you get some judges that don't need to be there because they were voted in. So this was my personal opinion from my experience. I'm a fan of the election process. And that's just, for me, liking being a judge. What was the other part of your question?