 The first one is from Daniel. He asked Elon Musk and the SEC were back in the news when Musk tweeted how many cars Tesla would build in 2019 and the SEC sued him for violating its settlement with them. What is the SEC really after? Is this related to the Martha Stewart conviction? I mean, it's related to the Martha Stewart conviction in the sense that the SEC is very stringent on insider trading laws and insider trading laws are unbelievably irrational. They're unbelievably illogical and incredibly harmful the way they're practiced today. Martha Stewart was convicted because she got a tip from somebody who was unrelated to the firm, I think from her broker, and she traded on it and then she was convicted because she made money and what she should have known was insider information. But the whole definition of insider information is not objective. It's not clear in the law. And when Elon Musk says how many cars Tesla would build in a public statement which is Twitter, how is that violating insider information? How is that manipulating the price when he's just conveying information to everybody? And if that information he believes to be true, if he is lying about the number of cars he believes, then he would be committing fraud. But this is SEC. The SEC wants to control rigorously the flow of information from companies to the public and to, particularly to specific publics, specific groups among the public. And it does this through massive bodies of regulation including insider trader regulations. I don't think there's any particular agenda item here other than it had a settlement with him that I think stated that he shouldn't make public statements about the future of Tesla through mechanisms like Twitter. And he violated it. But the public settlement was wrong to begin with. And the whole interest in what he says and how he says it is wrong. It's none of the government's business unless they can show that he is committing fraud. And I don't think that's been the argument. Although at one point there was that argument that he was committing fraud. At one point he said something like, and I'm paraphrasing so don't, we're going to go serious negotiations to take the company public, private, private. Which stock shares shot up now, was he really negotiations if he wasn't. And if it turns out that he said that in order to drive the price up and then he sold at the top. Then there's a case for fraud, or the case for you was trying to manipulate the stock for his own private gain. And you could argue that shareholders should sue him. But if it's fraud then the SEC has a role and the government has a role. If it's just him trying to present information in a nonfraudulent way but he's taking advantage of it in some way in his trading. That is more shareholder issue that should be settled in civil courts. The shareholders. So there's a whole issue. There's a whole issue that I think I've talked about in the past but requires a significant chunk of time. About insider trading laws. What is the fiduciary duty of a CEO to his shareholders? What should he disclose and what shouldn't he disclose? How should he disclose it? Is there any limits on how CEOs should trade stocks? All of these kind of things are interesting topics. And I think my conclusion is that the government has very little role to play here that most of this, other than again in real fraud, most of this would be decided in a rational market by the exchanges and by the contractual relationships between shareholders and management. And that all this can be settled through the market and through the legal system without the involvement of any kind of government entities. Again with exception of actual fraud.