 So just looking at the top question here, and it's one that I am totally interested in. Do we have any data on how people feel about these processes, like sort of say two years afterwards? So, you know, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in as well. You know, obviously some people immediately they might have a reaction, but is there any data on how those people then take that away and how they feel about it and think about it when a certain amount of time has gone past? Well, you know, we have, well, there is some data from, for example, City of Reykjavik, my service they've done and stuff like that, you know, about those processes. And they have, I mean, what we've had is, you know, largely very positive in terms of, you know, 60, 70 percent of people liking it and sort of 80, 90 percent of people wanting more. But I think, you know, sort of the proof is a bit in the pudding, you know, in terms of, for example, with Reykjavik, you know, participation was not going since 2010, it keeps on growing every year. So that must mean, you know, that, I mean, that is at least a really strong indication that people are interested in this and the people who start participating, at least not all of them stop. Can I maybe add a little bit to that? There is a trust issue here. But I think we can, we could easily see that to begin with the trust in the government, both city and country government, was very small. When projects are continued, even if they're small, but people see that they actually mean something, trust increases gradually. And I think it cannot be underappreciated the value of patience and time in a process like this. Great. Felix, do you have anything to add to that? Yeah, I think I can just underline what, what Jorn just said. I think the difficulty of this is that the one is that obviously constitutions always run a little bit as a background, right? So there's no, you don't go around and ask questions like, you know, are you happy with your constitutional system? So you will have to have a little bit more of kind of proxy data, people using the courts, are they happy with the way that governments and the different bodies work to run it and trust is obviously one of the key issues. And I think trust is very difficult to measure in, in meaningful ways. But if you just take, I think it depends also on the outcome of the constitutional process and what I've been witnessing in, if you compare Iceland and Chile, for instance, Iceland, I think only correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was a 47% voter turnout in the, in the referendum that's relatively low for Iceland. So I think that the moods maybe over the, over the two years kind of switched a little bit from maybe a little bit of euphoria to something that was not so euphoric anymore. And the reasons for that I think were complex and the same happened in Chile too, after the process failed, people were relatively unhappy or basically became disinterested in this question. Meta level legal question and that you will use proxy indicators to see probably how a constitutional system is working. Great. Okay. One final question just for now. So I can let you all go and stretch his legs or do some squats or whatever. According to data and surveys, society is witness today a high level of political polarization. How can participatory processes avoid being negatively affected? Maybe if I start this round. So, so in our experience, you know, by actually bringing the both sides of an arguments into a debate where, you know, you know, we both have, you know, the actually people looking at each other's arguments, which is actually one thing, they're breaking things out of an echo chamber, but also it's, you know, it's turned out that if people feel represented in the dialogue, so let's say we have an idea about something and you have a thousand people who are for it and the points for it and maybe 10 people against it, you know, they're totally against it. And if their view is represented as well, I think that's a way to decrease polarization in a way, but obviously it's a really big battle and we're just starting. Yeah, the point of participation is to have people who do not have the same views actually talk to each other. And one of the main reasons for polarization is the tendency which social media actually supports that people tend to talk only to those that are agree with them and that leads to polarization. That's sort of a psychological psychologically underlined thing. But participation, if you are able to bring together and manage a dialogue, a civil dialogue between people who actually are totally opposed in the views, it might not change the views, but it's going to make them more likely to respect each other and that reduces polarization. Yeah, I completely agree. I think that it follows on a little bit from what you said earlier that policy makers need to be also a little bit literate about what different tools do in different contexts. So I think that if you have something, mass participation processes are very good for idea generation and for broad coverage. But that's only one aspect of participation. I think that deliberation is a very crucial point, what John and Robert mentioned, that people need to be able to talk to one another. And so it's very tricky and very complicated to merge these two polls. And I think there are technological solutions, maybe, part of them. But we always have to be very careful to be very mindful of what different tools do, how people use them and be very nuanced and in the way that we plan, why, where and how we use digital tools in these processes. Yeah, so I think that's a good question. Great. Well, thank you so much, all three of you, for your presentations. I think we should give a special shout out to Robert, who most of you won't know how much effort Robert put in to making lots of really cool stuff happen in Reykjavik. There was you have no idea there was going to be a choir. There was going to be a drinks. You know, it was going to be amazing. And he put so much work in. And unfortunately, we haven't got to take advantage of it. So obviously a very, very big and special thank you to Robert as well for not only the presentation and for helping us out, but for all of those plans that unfortunately we couldn't take part in.