Good. And that I can tell you actually how people choose. And I already explored this a bit in a book I wrote on this topic called "Creating Future People". And the way I explored it, even before working for this company, is just looking at empirical studies of how, for example, women choose sperm donors. And then evolutionary biology, how women and men choose, choose mates, right? And, and what you can see is, yeah, they're not choosing along one dimension like height or intelligence. They're choosing along many and they're being chosen, of course, in a relationship anyway. But yeah, it's actually pretty good news. I mean, the the the empirical results are that people care mostly about health and kindness and personality traits like that, and also intelligence. They look for proxies of those. And I'm talking about both women seeking sperm donors and our own customers who have come through Herasight over the last couple of years. So, yeah, they're not, they're not just trying to max out. IQ, I don't think I've seen anyone do that. There are, once in a while you get kind of an eccentric one who's, like, really interested in one trait. But normally, what's going on is, if you have a family history of a disease, like schizophrenia, you're gonna really pay attention to that one and then take a glance at the other ones too. Or if you're, like, extremely short, you know, as a man, you know, you don't necessarily want to maximize height, but there are advantages to being at least average. And so we've seen people choose like that, and it really does correspond quite a bit to how people choose mates. So you mentioned the kind of eugenics of it. I mean, mate selection is a lot like that. I tend to shy away from the word eugenics because people tar it with a certain thing. But, you can call this liberal eugenics, or a genetic enhancement, or whatever you call it, but, but the reality is in the sense of looking for proxies of things like health and and, you know, intelligence, you know, having good personality, sense of humor, people do that all the time in the dating market and the fertility market. But let me address, I think the one overarching claim that James really latched on to is the inequality bit at the beginning. And I want to, I want to dissect that, and then maybe he could talk more about pleiotropy, because I think the one thing that we'll both agree on strongly is that pleiotropy is one of the more interesting scientific topics to talk about when it comes to selection. So with inequality, let me just say a couple of things before we move on. One is, first of all, when you see people worrying about inequality, some of it is actually quite important, and I know James is very sincere, but then when you look at some journalists, it's very insincere. Because they'll say things like, embryo selection doesn't work and it's bad because it increases inequality. And you go, you know what? You need to choose one here. And James, of course, knows that it could work in principle. You know, he's an expert in behavioral genetics and, to some extent, statistical genetics, and all of these different areas that really we rely on to create predictors. So he knows, of course, in principle, it could work to some extent. It's just a question of how well it works, and therefore it can increase inequality. And I want to say, I mean for one thing, we already have increased inequality through assortative mating in the 20th century. So as women gain the ability to work and own property and so on, the first thing that you see happen is, although inequality and assortative mating are old, old issues. I mean, our mutual friend Gregory Clark argues in his books that assortative mating has been going on for a long time, but it really seems to have sped up when women could choose their job and then suddenly, instead of the male doctor marrying, you know, the pretty little gardener, or his nurse or whatever, the male doctor marries a female lawyer or something like that. And we can measure that increase in assortative mating, which produces more inequality as a byproduct. Now that's not a justification for it. It's just to say this is actually happening naturally. Will embryo selection speed it up? I think, no doubt it will. I think it's going to be very slow additive effect to that, especially now, you can't have truly massive gains in the next 1020 years, but it will increase inequality. I think we have to face that. And my response is, some kinds of inequality matter more than others. So I really want to live in a society where we have an equal right to a fair trial. We're treated equally under the law. You know, whether you're Muslim or Hindu or whatever, that all makes sense to me, but what I don't care about, and I think James, actually, in some ways, might agree, but I'm not an egalitarian in some deeper sense. And in fact, I'm an anti egalitarian in some ways. I'm a Nietzschean, and I start my book with a quote from Nietzsche, and the quote is at the beginning of Zarathustra, "Man is a rope stretched between beast and Superman. A rope over an abyss" And I think that this new genetic technology is going to increase inequality. It'll probably even lead to speciation, or the equivalent of that in the far future. And I think that creates interesting problems, but I'm a kind of perfectionist. I think that beauty, smart, creative, interesting people are worth creating, worth producing, even if it increases inequality.