I think the noisiest complaints that you get tend to be about consistency. They tend to say, “How did the pillar of Autumn get into orbit? It says in the [unintelligible] that it was dry dock. That’s not possible.” Y-, we often, uh, and even when you’re looking at faults, and that’s a real one by the way. That’s a real example. But we thought about it and we’re like, “Could the pillar of Autumn have gone from the dry dock to this orbital, I mean, whether it was described or not was it physically possible?” Sometimes we think about that stuff. And sometimes they’re just mistakes, you know, we’re, we’re human ultimately. We have to move the -- you know, I would -- I can’t really go back to my boss and say, “We can’t move this piece of the story forward because, uh, faster than light travel isn’t possible.” Right? I mean, it’s not satisfying. It’s not exciting. It’s not engaging. And I think that the logic is the, the enemy of story. You know, stories are -- I often get people to complain about a movie and they say, “Well, isn’t it kind of a big coincidence that the toughest cop from New York happens to be at the Comodo Plaza that day?” Well, you’re right. Most days he isn’t. And then there’s no story. And that happens every single minute of the day. Stories are coincidence. Real life stories, real life drama are about coincidence. They’re about the, the intersection and the nexus of people and events and places and, and that’s where stories come from. And so, logic is the enemy of that in a way, right? And, and, uh, Occam’s Razor would kill most, uh, sci-fi plots right off the bat. And, uh, so, we, we have to find a good balance between having a compelling, exciting, immersive narrative and, uh, and, and be more science than fiction.