Yeah.

I think there's a fascination there 'cause I used to...

A member of this parish, Mike Whitbread, used to be my boss m- many moons ago, and he used to sit next to a geophysicist called Neil Hughes, and they were two of the smartest applied people in their fields that I'd ever met, and they were really good at teaching me how to think about data and processes and streams.

But, but essentially what their entire logic and ethos boiled down to, which is, it sounds a bit like junior to go and say, but put your thinking cap on for a second here and then be like, "Do you think this makes geological sense? Do you think this is real?" And then go figure out why that is.

You need to know enough about the process, enough about the methods to go and say something intelligent about them, and then you can go back and go do it because we've all seen these things, right? Especially with things like catchment analysis and everything else as well where people will be trying to level things or they might...

And watersheds is another one which, like, I see, like, geochemical watersheds being used in just phenomenally ambitious ways to try to understand data, not because I think anyone is being disingenuous in the way that they're thinking about it.

I think it's just because, A, it's really hard, and then B, it is, there is a high degree of being quantitative in there.

That's fair