Right.

So, to Nate's point, like, they're kind of inelastic on what it costs to get these things.

They just want them.

We've heard, some of our contractors said they're getting paid three months in advance.

Oh my gosh, wow.

Now there's also, not a lot of packages at the GC level, advanced payments because they're smart and these guys are like hey you give us the money up front we'll procure a lot of this stuff we'll do the site work so they're in an overbuilt position which is great yeah and then you know i i don't you know unless there's like some black swan event you know that we don't know about right now it seems like there's an insatiable appetite for data i mean yeah look at our phones look at our computers right everything is becoming smart

But how are we on capacity and how do you view aggregational risk? in these kinds

of situations.

That's astonishing to me.

Yeah, you know, the state of mind evidence was overwhelming, and that was the strategy that the government had was to bring in as much character evidence as they could find for two and a half weeks.

And, you know, it's a good move, a good tactic, especially when they had a mountain of it, as you've noted.

But when you just focus on character evidence and you just beat up on that guy for weeks and assassinate his character, but then you don't show any physical evidence of how the fire started, when the fire started.

an open flame theory where they ruled out cigarettes because it was too cold that night and the conditions weren't right for cigarettes.

They did 500 cigarette tests, but then they didn't do any lighter tests.

And why not? Why didn't you try to see if the lighter could light the vegetation on fire? So, you know, I agree with you.

wasn't there?

That's astonishing to me.

Yeah, you know, the state of mind evidence was overwhelming, and that was the strategy that the government had, was to bring in as much character evidence as they could find for two and a half weeks.

And, you know, it's a good move, a good tactic, especially when they had a mountain of it, as you've noted.

But when you just focus on character evidence, and you just beat up on that guy for weeks, and... assassinate his character but then you don't show any physical evidence of um how the fire started when the fire started um an open flame theory where they ruled out cigarettes because it was too cold that night and the conditions weren't right for cigarettes they did 500 cigarette tests but then they didn't do any lighter tests and why not why didn't you try to see if the lighter could light the vegetation on fire so you know i i agree with you there was just a mountain of character evidence.

So when I took the case, I thought it might almost be indefensible based on exactly what you're saying.

But then as I dug a little deeper, it became clear to me I had a lot to work with in terms of a potential reasonable doubt, and the jury agreed.

there?

All right.