So in your view, perhaps the contemporary world, it's becoming, I don't know what the word would be, stranger or weirder or more shaped by individuals who are different, precisely because conformity is being piled on other places. So if the movers and shakers would be people who are in some way neurodiverse, then overall the world is becoming more surprising in a way, right? Less what we expect at different margins and different corners, and this will accumulate, and it may never feel like we're getting out of the great stagnation, but each bit of change we get is in a way a more different bit of change than we would get, say, in 1957, when everything was done with guys with white shirts and starched white collars, and you know, hoping they would be able to buy a little pocket calculator someday. Yeah, I'm not sure whether, you know, I think the innovation that we are getting is driven in strange ways. I worry that actually the conformity problem is actually more acute than it was in the 50s or 60s, so that the category of the eccentric scientist, or even the eccentric professor, is sort of a species that is steadily going extinct, because there's sort of is less space for that in our research universities than there used to be. And so I worry that perhaps if anything, it's a little bit the other way, but it's very hard to measure these things or calibrate them. So I think that in politics, the conventional approach is to simply look at pollsters. What are your positions going to be? You just look at the polls, you figure this out, and it works fairly well. At the end of the day, that's probably not how the system really changes. It probably will get changed by some idiosyncratic people who have really strong convictions and are over time able to convince more people of them. But whether this means that we have more or less change is hard to evaluate. But I think it always comes from these somewhat non-conventional channels. So let's say you're trying to select people for your teal fellowships, or maybe to work for one of your companies, or to start a new company with, and just you, Peter Tiel, as a judge of talent, what trait do you look for in that person that is being undervalued by others? So the rest of the world out there, it's way too conformist, so there must then be unexploidated profit opportunities in finding people. And if you're less conformist, which I'm very willing to believe, indeed would insist on that being the case, what is it you look for? Well, it's very difficult to reduce it any single traits, because a lot of what you're looking for are like these almost zen-like opposites. So you want people who are both really stubborn and really open-minded. That's like a little bit contradictory. You want people who are sort of idiosyncratic and really different, but then who can work well together in teams. And so this is again, maybe not 180 degrees opposite, but it's like 175 degrees. And this is why you like Hegel. Not, not, not, not, I don't like Hegel that much, but, but, but, but so, but, but I think it's, so if you sort of focus too much on one or the other end of it, you'd get it completely, you would tend to get it completely wrong. So, but I like to get things where you get these combinations of unusual traits. So, if you have people with some really interesting, very different idea, that suggests, okay, we're in sort of in the idiosyncratic category, then the important question becomes, okay, would they actually be able to function socially and execute? And then, then maybe the teamwork question, you'd ask would be, what's the prehistory of this company? How did you meet? How long have you been working together? And if there's a long prehistory, that would be, that would be good on the other side. So, I think it's always getting these combinations right.