I guess building off that in a different direction, so in terms of embracing the ordinary and how this connected to the relaunch of the animal protection organization. It began with their initial idea was that they were going to and again, it's important to emphasize this is a really quite radical, shocking thing to do as an animal protection organization. It began with a decision that they would take down from their office walls and all their campaign literature, any image of animal suffering, and indeed, more than that, they they went through their the language of their their website and their literature, and removed any words that appeared to relate to or connect to animal suffering. So there was an idea that if you moved away from an emphasis on what happened to animals and towards an emphasis upon the ordinary relationships that ordinary people have to animals, then you could perhaps find a way to do animal protection or to achieve moral renewal without leaving the mainstream. And this was a kind of embodied in a kind of further couple of moves, further aspiration, that instead of the animal activist being a figure, again, you know who stood outside the mainstream and was against it, instead you could collapse the distance between the animal activist and the ordinary person in the mainstream and in their mind. You did this by envisaging that everybody could could be in this mainstream animal protection movement. You could be a somebody with a long history of campaigning against vivisection and a long history of commitment to veganism. But you could also be somebody who, just this week, has decided to eat less meat each week, or to switch from eating low grade meat to higher welfare meat, and that, in a sense, these two subjects were part of the same movement suddenly. And there's this idea that everyone was on their own journey moving towards an animal friendly future. So this was kind of, this was the overall ambition they had for, in a sense, achieving moral renewal without leaving the mainstream or the ordinary. And then at the same time, there was this idea that instead of kind of appealing to critique or exposure, or again, preaching or campaigning or appealing to moral reason, we would be better off as a mainstream animal protection organization in engaging the ordinary person by again, appealing to their ordinary relationships with animals and their ordinary interests in animals, so that again, instead of these images of animals suffering, What they put up instead were images of animal flourishing, images, I don't know, which emphasized the sentient superpowers of particular species, the strength of the foot of the elephant, or the scenting ability of the snake. And again, this idea that it was ordinary emotions which was the root for kind of moral renewal through the mainstream, so that it was in the ordinary person's capacity to be amazed or inspired by animals that one would more, as it were, naturally find a basis for renewing the mainstream as a whole. So I guess in answer, Jonathan to your first question, that this is, in essence, for the colleagues I was working with in the animal protection organization, where this idea of embracing the mainstream as as as a route, as a route towards a new future, towards for Animal Protection emerged, I suppose, in terms of limit points or strain points. Interestingly, they often came at points at which the ordinary again, appeared to create a problem. So, for example, it in the relaunch, they expanded their staff and started to employ some people who had no history of a moral interest or commitment to animal protection, partly out of out of that idea of an ethos that the organization itself should express the mainstream as well, or the ordinary person, I couldn't just express the person who was an animal activist. This created a kind of a number of tension points, but also kind of some some intriguing ones. So they employed, for example, a new communications officer. And this individual had no history or background in animal activism, but they were a vegetarian from birth. But as the individual kept telling colleagues they were vegetarian from birth, but in no way motivated by a moral interest in animals. And this was really awkward for quite a long time for colleagues to have this person here who was a vegetarian. And and at the same time, was not motivated by a concern with animals in their vegetarianism, and they didn't know what to do with it. And in a sense, it kind of rendered vegetarianism ordinary in an uncomfortable or unwarranted way. That perhaps is one kind of example where the ordinary can resurface in a manner that suddenly appears jarring or problematic in the context of the animal activist again, often this was in their relationship to what they would define as, quote, unquote, extreme animal animal activists, who would be, for example, very resistant to the idea that activists were ordinary people and that activists could treat other people as ordinary people as well, you know, so that they the the quote, the quote, unquote, extreme animal activists would often resist the invitation of the moderate activists to greet each other as ordinary people, and instead demand that that the moderate activist be more consistent in their behavior, ensure that all aspects of their behavior added up to their moral interest in animals, and indeed, would often charge them or accuse them of being colluding or collaborating in their engagements with moderate scientists or moderate civil servants, etc. So there are moments in which this was kind of thrown back at more resistant, this invitation to connect on the basis of the ordinary,