Do you use design to be provocative in your organizations? To what extent is that the goal? And obviously for you there's an end because you have a new product, but in terms of how your organization's work is designed, you're describing design as being solution based as opposed to being provocative. I'm just curious if there's that. Not that those are mutually exclusive. Well that's what I'm curious about, how that feels for you guys. In this year there's been, inside the world, in what it's kind of saying technology sucks, computer sucks, and that's provocative coming from a company that lives in technology, lives in computers. And the provocation is that how do we get it out of the way so we just all benefit from technology without it being there. That's what I would say is provocative, but at the end result hopefully it should be something seamless, effortless, you don't even see it, notice it in the product side. In the communications side, probably, and more provocative because everyone's a totally ignoring every message on the planet. So you have to find some little bit of magic or something that jolt them out of the day they have that's in and go, oh wow that's kind of cool. Because for us it is a little bit different. I think if we just looked it out from an effective perspective, it would allow you to have stuff that it doesn't get noticed at times. And that's a part of design. But in communication business, you have to force people to take notice. You have to invoke an immediate response. So provocation is just a core part that we have to do. I mean I think there can be provocation in the product side too that's really important. It's just a question of, I mean to me provocation is just distance from incrementality. Are you trying to make something slightly better every day? Like Amazon Web Services or something? Or are you doing major leapfrog innovation where you're putting something out there that the risk is higher because the potential reward is higher, changing in behavior. Like the way touch just happened and all of a sudden everyone's doing, you know, interacting haptically and whatnot. I think that those kinds of risks are in the sort of fitness landscape to use your evolutionary example. Bigger risks with potentially bigger outcomes more disruptive outcomes. I totally agree. But the reason why those touching wins, it wasn't that it disrupts the technology. It's not at all. It's better. It finds a natural use. So that's all I'm telling you. It's not provocation. It's provocative to get to the natural human state. And yeah, so the big leap to get there. But at the end, it's like, proof is like 18 months, kids, my nephew literally knows how to tackle it. So we got it all out of the way. I agree. You know what I'm just thinking about is it's funny how simplicity can be provocative in a complex organization. So in a way disruption, provocation doesn't necessarily come in these big forms, sometimes like touch becomes in the really simple things. Do you guys like being provocative? Do you, within your own organizations, are you like, yeah, I'm the one who's going to push people along, poke? Yeah. Yeah, right? That's, yeah, that's, that's what you want. What's the downside of being that, of the provocateur? What's the downside? I mean, you have to deliver on it, right? I mean, you say something pretty provocative. You've got to have something to back it up or you're just the person that's saying wild things in the corner, right? So, you know, I mean, that's what I'm talking about, the speed versus quality. I mean, it's kind of easier to go with speed because if you aspire to a higher level of quality, you actually have to deliver and you have to ask yourself really tough questions. So I don't think it's necessarily easy to do it because I want to deliver on it, not just poke. I think you can provoke with a question though. I mean, just an alternative approach to the problem, a reframing can be provocative, right? Not necessarily arrogance saying, you know, I have, you know, I'm the smartest or most creative person in the room. That does, I don't think flies. And you know, in terms of outcomes, I think products that engage people because they have some of that quality, they're not different in a meaningless way. They're different because I didn't really think of that possibility. That's provocative, I think. But when I showed the whole team, I took them to the room and I showed them the first design that was just a sketch. So they came on the boat and started telling me the plastic guide, the metal guide, the engineer, one by one why none of this can be done. Absolutely none of this. So it was very frustrating. So what I had to do is take the last product, they put it on the table and said, okay, this is really not a great product. You know what I mean? So you smash it with a hammer. Are you serious? That's nice words. I told them, tell me one good thing about it and then we started to go through a process and I showed them that everything is bad. The way you've carbonate the sound, the looks, the materials, everything. So when step by step and in the end of the meeting, two people left the room. One of them actually left the company. It was quite provocative meeting but it was a must meeting for everything that happened afterwards. But people understood that what we had before is not a way to go. So whether they find a way right now to do it or not, they need to find a way. So I think sometimes it's just a must. I think you can be provocative and you can actually be a disruptor. I don't like labels or anyone but you also what you're talking about is you had the leadership capabilities and you own the project and when you are being provocative and you force people to see it your way or see it a different way or get out of the way they've been doing things. They see the leadership in you and the responsibility that you're taking on for that project and they'll come to light with it and that's what you were just talking about. Do you think, actually think, to be a leader, you have to be provocative and I think the most provocative people within Google are not the designers. I don't think it's like Larry and Sergey. I know, start, I'm sure it's the same. There's a lot at the top. So I think anyone who's leading things from one place to another place has to have a pain of clear provocative picture or as of clear provocative question. I believe that CEOs are designers. They just don't know that. They are dealing with chaotic, difficult problems that don't really have answers that they have to juggle. They're getting lots of input and they're constantly shifting. It's ironic that they don't see themselves and they don't always appreciate what design is doing because that's really what they're what they're worth. It goes right back to like, how do you define it? If you design it, look it up. It's like to do anything with intent as you were saying to shape how we experience the world. That's like, who isn't a designer? Well, that is a good question. I mean, what does define a designer? Total insecurity. B.A. Our train for a world that follows a certain kind of order. Designers are trained for a world that anything can happen. I think what our user experience and our user designers have done is said this needs to apply. They want the broadest set of problems to solve. You'll be able to do this and this and this and this and that's the thing that seems to spark.