I mean, we were part of the UN for almost 20 years. And there were a lot of advantages to that in tapping into the networks and the access that the UN has the infrastructure. But it also came with some drawbacks, in part being part of a huge bureaucracy, partly the perception that some had that we were an advocacy organization or a kind of NGO, bunch of folks that were kind of promoting certain points of view, which wasn't, which wasn't true, but you could understand why people would think that way. I think the largest obstacle was that we were trying to do real independent journalism, but housed in this this thing that had all kinds of diplomatic sensitivities and operational constraints. And it just got to a point, particularly over coverage of Syria in which it wasn't tenable anymore, and I think both sides felt that we would it would be a win win. If we split off and became independent that way we'd be completely free to write about and write how we felt The best and the UN and its staff and its operations wouldn't pay any price for what we published. So that's why we kind of decided to split off. And it was essentially like setting up a whole new organization, we had to create a new governance structure, we had to hire new staff had to fundraise from scratch, right to build up operations, finance, everything that you that you can imagine goes into setting up an organization. So we were for many intents and purposes, a startup really. But with this legacy, and reputation and history that gave us I think, some credibility, and with, you know, an existing audience, and to some extent, some funders that knew what we did and had funded us via the UN, and we're looking to see what this next chapter would look like, and whether that that might be something that continue to support. So we had a few, a few starting points, but it was really a whole new ballgame in many ways, in terms of really entering the media landscape in a in a more visible way. And, and acting like a bonafide a newsroom and not a un project.