I think there's so much to talk about on this, Becky, I would just first of all, bring up this concept of zero goals. So, you know, there's different levels of ambition, you can have you say, I want my nonprofit to double in revenue, or I want to hire more staff. But you know, think about zero goals as a way to examine how ambitious you're being. Zero goals are things like, I want to end all child marriage, you know, the whole world, I think there should be no more forced marriage of kids. And that's a really big goal. It's a zero goal. Because you know, if you get to that state, there will be none, no more of that happening, you see a lot of zero goals around health issues, because there may be a little easier to measure like polio, you know, we're close to the global eradication of polio. And zeros are really compelling. You know, people really sit up in their chairs, when you when you talk about the stuff, it's like, this is something that you know, we can do, and then it will be over for the rest of the world, like forever. And you know, there's only one disease in human history, smallpox that was ever fully eradicated. But now there's like seven or eight more that were close to that, like maybe in the next decade or so could get eradicated. So I think, first of all, we got to ask ourselves, are we being ambitious enough? Are we looking at these really big goals, it could be a zero goal, it could be something like you see in the sustainable development goals. But if you're in this space, there's no point in being in it. If you're not being really ambitious, that doesn't have to mean, you know, I want to scale something globally, it could just be in your own neighborhood. You know, but But am I being ambitious enough about what I'm trying to do? Or is it a check the box activity? Is it like, you know, we're gonna keep going and do what we've done last year. And I think the world and the scale of the problems is just demanding more from all of us. And I think the market shift in our space, is that it used to be enough to bring good intentions to the table and say, you know, I just really want to help, and I have these great intentions. I think that's still really important. But that's not enough on its own, we now have to bring a much stronger focus on results. Like is the thing we're out there to do? Is it working? How do we know it's working? Are we honest with ourselves when it's not, and therefore pivoting to the things that might work? And I think we're being you know, really called to be much tougher on our own selves, to make sure as nonprofit leaders or as you know, international development professionals, that the work we do is the right kind of work. It's having to kind of effect we want it to happen. I'll just give one one quick example, which is around this organization called give directly talking about in my book as well, we cover a dev x all the time. You know, it's a group of economists, who said, why don't we just literally give money to poor people? Like, why are all these nonprofits set up to do education programs and health programs and agriculture programs? If, if we know these people are poor, why don't we just give them money, and they won't be poor anymore? Right. And it's a very simplistic concept in many ways. And so people laughed at it. At first, they sort of said, Yeah, this doesn't work. If you give poor people money, they'll probably go out and spend on alcohol and, and other vices, you know, and, and you're not going to actually address these issues. And they said, but do we know that? Or are we just assuming that, and so this group got together, and they started very rigorously measuring this approach, they use satellite photography, and they went to East Africa, and they said, Okay, if we find a village, and a lot of people have tin roofs, they must be doing okay. But the huts that only have, you know, thatched roofs made out of grass, they probably have less resources, will target those homes, and through mobile money right to their cell phone, we'll give them $1,000, you know, unheard of amount of money in those communities. And then we'll really track what they do with it. And they did this, they did it really rigorously. And they found you know, what, actually some pretty positive effects, people weren't wasting the money. People were spending it on things that you would you and I would spend it on, they were making their homes a little bit better they were spending on on school clothes for their kids on food to improve their nutrition. And so this concept started to grow. They got money from a couple of big foundations in Silicon Valley, including google.org. And I think they've now given away more than $150 million directly to poor people. Now, it's not a panacea. And I think the folks over give directly would say to themselves, this is not going to just solve everything. But it is kind of a call to action to all the nonprofits out there that don't do cash programming, and instead do health or education or agriculture, to say, can you measure the results of your program, and show that they are at least as strong or ideally a lot stronger than just giving away money? Because if you can't, then why don't you just give away money? Right, it's a it's it basically entered brings a strong competitive element into the nonprofit space, where we might have before just sort of had a glossy brochure with pictures and said, look at the great work I do. There are a lot of smiling kids, they're happy. And now you have to say, well give directly gets this impact when they give away $1,000. What impact did we get when we spend $1,000? On our program? Wow.