I'll give you I'll give you I'll give you one example. It's not a least favorites. It's a story with a with a good ending, which is that when the situation in Afghanistan was unfolding in August, or July and into August, of course, there was a huge amount of attention on what what why is this happening? And understandably, there was a lot of attention on Joe Biden and the decisions that he had taken and the fact that he unilaterally decided to do this, despite the reservations of his European allies. I was, though interested to unpack the history of this going back to the Trump administration's meetings with the Taliban in Doha, the year before it seemed to me that you couldn't, which is not to say Joe Biden didn't have a role in the story, but you couldn't understand the story unless you had first understood the dynamics that have played out in those negotiations, both in terms of who was invited and who wasn't invited and in terms of, of what was agreed, and there was a lot to put in because it's a complicated story, and we wanted to get it right. And I think we made an eight minute explainer. All of the information had been signed off. So it'd been through the BBC experts had been through the process that I was that I've already described to you. But it didn't keep us there were there was one section in particular in the middle where there was, I was talking for too long a time without break where the sentences had lost their rhythm and would become flabby. Factually, it was correct, but in terms of a high quality explainer video to consume, it wasn't quite there. And the output editor on the time was one of my closest colleagues, Andrew Bryson. And he came over to me, and the producer, I think, was Michael Cox off the top of my head, but I might be doing another colleague, a disservice. And Andrew is like, there's this section in the middle that's got to go. And I was like, we can't take that out. We can't take it out. Like that's part of the story. And so we stood huddled around this you know, for I don't know how long we to and fro and in the end after about 15 minutes, Andrew said, I've got to go make my gun to go get my train. And and he went to get his train. And I watched it back again, the long version from the start. And he was right. I could feel my attention drifting, even though I'd written the thing. So if I wasn't interested to watch it, my goodness, no one else would stick with it, of course. And so we went back and we re edited the script, and we found ways of taking slack out of the script elsewhere. To shorten it. We dropped some elements that we managed to navigate the story without, and we've got it down to about five and a half, six minutes. And I haven't checked recently, but it was on something like 1.4 million views. Last time I checked, it went completely viral and was very effective. And if Andrew hadn't insisted that we revisit the efficiency of our information delivery, it definitely wouldn't have done and so that comes to a really important point that I would emphasize, which is we have no fixed length, but we have a fixed rule about efficiency. So maybe a video needs to be two minutes, maybe it needs to be nine minutes, whatever it needs to be. It needs to be ruthlessly efficient. It needs to be ruthlessly fair and it needs to take you through the story with a rhythm that makes you want to start at the beginning and stick with it all the way and if you can feel it's wrong, even though you've been working on it all day and even though the last thing you want to do is change it as you need to because if you don't, it's not going to work.