But it sounds to me like you can suggest ways to blend hops to make a more consistent flavor and maybe more consistent in terms of of acids and oils is that is that

fair well i was specifically referring to um the format of the product so t90 versus versus salvo right they're vastly different in the way they perform in both the kettle um salvo is not really going to be used on the cold side although um Some brewers like to, you know, craft and they're going to do what they want to do.

And, you know, I always say there's no wrong way to make a beer unless it tastes like shit.

And so, you know, these brewers are going to experiment with trying to get... you know, a new idea or a new process in place that they think will make them unique, which is fine.

But when it comes to looking at a flavor, you know, let's just use, you know, Centennial for an example.

You know, the Centennial pellets are going to taste like Centennial Salvo.

They're just... they're going to perform differently within your system and everybody's systems a little different.

Anything exciting you want to share with us?

How do you approach this when like you sort of have carte blanche, right? So how, how do you, I don't even know how you start.

Yeah.

I mean, you start by looking at that, the current recipe that they're brewing.

Um, And then, you know, you have to obviously have a knowledge base of the hops that we're selling at Hopsteiner and understand where there's some overlays in in flavor.

And then you start to look at the proportions and and.

oils and how much we're delivering to the beer through the whirlpool or the dry hop or whatever, wherever it may be in the process.

And you just, you start tinkering conceptually.

okay and so you know i heard you know nugget salvo that makes sense it's a salvo made out of nugget but i heard salvo plus what is salvo plus

Does this rule take advantage of advances in computing and artificial intelligence that would expand privacy protections or does it not?

No, it does not.

In fact, it dials back the clock.

So there's been a lot of technology that has come out in the past 20, even 30 years that produces things like noise infusion, where we infuse a certain amount of noise into the data, which doesn't affect the aggregate statistic or estimate very much, and also protects the privacy of those individuals who are within the dataset.

The issue with privacy is that people can use linking mechanisms to out side data sets, which would could then be traced back to identify a certain person and their answers in the data set.

That's a real problem.

And that's where the noise infusion comes in.

What is the practical outcome you're concerned about and how might an ordinary citizen notice the difference?

Does this rule take advantage of advances in computing and artificial intelligence that would expand privacy protections or does it not?

No, it does not.

In fact, it dials back the clock.

So there's been a lot of technology that has come out in the past 20, even 30 years that produces things like noise infusion, where we infuse a certain amount of noise into the data, which doesn't affect the aggregate statistic or estimate very much, and also protects the privacy of those individuals who are within the data set.

The issue with privacy is that people can use linking mechanisms to output side data sets, which would could then be traced back to identify a certain person and their answers in the data set.

That's a real problem.

And that's where the noise infusion comes in.

What is the practical outcome you're concerned about? And how might an ordinary citizen notice the difference?

Can you talk about what that inclusion is going to look like and how you all are adjusting for what's available?

I really appreciate how Nasdaq approached fast entry in general.

And a- as you alluded to, fast entry isn't something that's completely new.

Other index providers have had it, right? Russell, MSCI, CRSP, they all have fast entry pr- provisions.

Um, so it's, it's nothing new.

And Michael, to the point that you made, I would be surprised if a company like SpaceX, which definitely has the pedigree of being a Nasdaq-100 Company wasn't included.

So throughout all the conversations I've had over the past few weeks, it, it comes down to, okay, how's it gonna be weighted, right? And basically looking at free float versus total market cap, and if that free float number is less than one-third of the total market cap, NASDAQ applies a flat 3X multiplier to that free float to give you the modified market cap weight.

Like, is there anything-- Is it just market caps beating everything? Is it that simple?

I'm curious if the type of conversations that you all at Invesco are having with their clients are reflecting the renewed interest.

It definitely is.

I mean, you have to think about our ETF lineup as well, Michael.

You know, we have over 230 different tickers here in the U.S. alone, right? And the Q's obviously is a major part of that story.

But, you know, we're trying to make sure that our clients' portfolios are diversified.

So we've been having that conversation around diversification, concentration risk that's in the broader market within the S&P 500 for the past two years, really.

We have the largest equal weight S&P 500 fund.

Are you still seeing a lot of fanfare there from investors who really love to see that high income?