Ask Me Anything - August 2025

Stephen answers listeners' questions.

-------------

€10 discount on becoming a yearly supporter in August using code AUGUST2025

www.send7.org

-------------

Past 'Ask Me Anything' episodes:
Christmas 2024 : https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ask-me-anything-2024--63465061
Chrismtas 2023 : https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bonus-your-stories-ask-me-anything--58107490

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, This is Stephen Devin Chenzie and this is a
special bonus episode of Send seven Simple English News Daily.
Just in case you don't know, This podcast is normally
released five days a week and tells the world's news
in seven minutes, but during August we are having a
semi break and episodes are only being released on Tuesdays

(00:23):
and Fridays. However, last month I asked people to submit
questions for an Ask Me Anything episode, and in today's
long episode, I will answer them all. Some of them
are personal questions about the podcast and our lives, some
of them are about the news and how we select
the news, and there are a couple of more controversial

(00:46):
political questions too. This podcast is free, however, if you
enjoy it, please consider becoming a send seven supporter. Our
supporters really do keep this podcast running. They also have
access to to our transcripts every day, including this one.
Our transcripts are written by hand by us, not made

(01:06):
using AI. Supporters also get vocabulary lists, English worksheets, and
a weekly world news quiz to check if they've been
paying attention to that week's news. And just during August,
there is a ten euro discount on becoming a yearly
supporter using the discount code August twenty twenty five. You

(01:27):
can become a supporter at senseven dot org and you're
going to hear the voices of some of our amazing
supporters today, starting with Tao in France.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
Hey, Stephen, is Tao from France. Firstly, I wanted to
say thank you for this wonderful podcast and here are
my two questions. Could you please tell it when you
record the news at midnight and how do you decide

(01:58):
which news e important for listeners to listen to. Thank
you and haf a great day. Bye.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
Thanks Tao. Yes, you have correctly seen that we record
at midnight UK time. This is because we have a
lot of listeners in Asia, including very far east like
in Japan and Korea, and they are eight hours ahead
of us here in Western Europe, so midnight for us
is eight am in Tokyo. A lot of the first

(02:30):
people to listen to the podcast each day are in Asia,
and then people in Europe and Africa generally listen a
few hours later. Of course, one of the problems with
this is that in the Americas they are a few
hours behind us in Europe, so for example, the Tuesday
episode is actually released on Monday evening in the Americas,

(02:53):
but as we are releasing a news podcast aimed at
everyone in the world, there just isn't a perfect time
to really an episode. And how do we decide what
news is important for listeners? This is really difficult, but
I would say we try to find a good balance.
Because of the format of each episode, splitting the world

(03:13):
into Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia and Oceania. This
already makes sure that we have some geographical balance of stories,
and then the rest of the balance comes from the
content of the stories. Some stories are very widely covered
around the world already. With these ones, we just try
to say what is happening in the most simple way possible.

(03:37):
We also try to cover some stories that are less
well known, and also because a lot of news is depressing,
we also try to make sure that there are some
positive stories in there too. Here's another question related to
how we choose the news from Mikau in Poland.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Hello, I'm Mihel from Poland. I have one question, what's
your favorite source of news? Thank you for seven, Good luck?

Speaker 1 (04:05):
Thanks me. How seven takes news from many different sources
in every episode and when we write each story, we
normally look at a few different sources, especially if it's
a more controversial subject that different sources might disagree on.
Sources that are in almost every episode of the podcast
are Reuter's, Associated Bress, the Guardian, the BBC, Al Jazeera,

(04:29):
and some others. However, for many many stories, we also
look at what a local source of news is saying
about it. Sometimes there are details that only local media
is reporting, and then you might hear us say according
to local media. Also, you might sometimes hear us say
according to Reuter's or the BBC have said that blah

(04:51):
blah blah. We normally do this when a story is
only reported in one place, or if a bit of
detail about the story is unique to one source. Anyway, Mikhau,
you asked what my favorite source of news is, I
would probably say Reuters because they just have so many
journalists absolutely everywhere in the world, so they are able

(05:14):
to report on stories everywhere and more personally. In my
spare time, I read the New York Times and every
Sunday I buy the Sunday Times, although since I became
a dad four months ago, I don't have enough time
to read it all.

Speaker 4 (05:29):
Hello, my name is Marta and I'm from Poland. First
of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude
for Steven and his team's amazing work. I started today
on my way to work by listening to ten seven
and it doesn't make me feel depressed or anxious like
other news headlines often do. The podcast is very informative

(05:50):
and impartial, but also quite often uplifting and tearful. Steven,
congratulation to you and to your partner on the birth
of your son Wichik, You and your family lots of
health and happiness, as well as Ben Mallett and Juliet Martin.
I would like to ask you how much does it
take you to prepare one episode of the podcast?

Speaker 5 (06:12):
I mean per day?

Speaker 4 (06:14):
Thank you for offering this podcast for free to people
who like me just listening without purchasing the premium version.
Is there a way to send you sometimes donation, for
example for paper for those who doesn't need the transcripts
and exercises like me. Thanks again and have a lovely
summer two years.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Thank you Marta for that lovely enthusiasm. I'm really happy
to hear that you find the podcast informative and not depressing.
Thanks also for the congratulations on the birth of my son.
How long does it take to make an episode? In total?
It is probably around four or five hours. Most of
this time is reading the news from various sources and

(06:58):
simplifying the stories as much as possible. The actual recording
and editing is about an hour. However, I spend much
more time than this on other things related to the podcast,
like promotions, setting up interviews, solving problems, managing the website,
and talking to our amazing supporters. I answer all emails myself,

(07:19):
so that takes quite a while. Whenever you hear the
voice of someone else, then they have made the whole
episode themselves, including selecting the stories and writing the transcript.
Speaking of other people, you will probably have noticed that
Ben has left us. He was changing where he lived
and changing the school that he worked at, and decided

(07:41):
to take that moment to concentrate on other things. However,
we are super happy to recently have Nil with us.
Niall is on a trip to Albania at the moment.
Let's see if he'll send us a what's up voice message?

Speaker 6 (07:54):
Hi, everyone's Nile here. It's been a real pleasure to
join the Sense of team and be bringing you all
simple English news every week. Really looking forward to doing
this more in the weeks to come. A little bit
about me. I'm originally from London in the United Kingdom,
though I'm currently living in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Right

(08:18):
now this second, i'm walking in the Accursed mountains in Albania,
but luckily they're much lovelier than the name would suggest.
I hope you're all well, take care, and I guess
you'll be hearing me soon.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Thanks Nile and Martin. Regarding giving some kind of donation
without becoming a supporter, thank you for that suggestion. There
isn't a way to do that. However, you can just
become a supporter for one month and then immediately cancel
like that. I'll say thank you to you on the
podcast as well. Fatimah in Iran has emailed a long

(08:56):
question which I was trying to summarize, but I don't
want to miss an out, so instead I'm going to
read it in parts and answer it in parts. Here's
the first part. When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago,
all the European countries condemned it severely, imposing drastic sanctions
on Russia. But when Israel invaded Iran, not only they

(09:18):
didn't condemn it, but also supported it through their media,
political support and financial aids. When Ukraine defended itself, the
United States and almost all European countries helped it and
still help. But in the same situation they asked Iran
not to retaliate. What can it be called if not
a double standard? Okay, I'll try to answer this bit

(09:40):
first and then keep reading. It is definitely true that
the reactions of European governments were very different to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine compared to Israel's bombing of Iran. However,
I must say, Fatimah, I really don't think that these
situations are similar. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is clearly one

(10:03):
of conquest, and they have said so. Russia firstly tried
to remove the government of Ukraine in twenty twenty two
by invading from all sides and trying to reach Kiev. However,
they were stopped and they gave up after about six weeks,
and since then they've concentrated mostly on the East and

(10:24):
they have declared that the parts of Ukraine that they
have conquered are now part of Russia, and even some
parts of Ukraine that they haven't conquered are now officially
part of Russia according to Russian law. Israel extensively bombed
Iran and conducted targeted assassinations of senior Iranians. From what

(10:46):
I can find, somewhere between six hundred and one two
hundred Iranians were killed before the ceasefire was declared. Israel
clearly isn't planning to conquer Iran, so that's one pretty
big difference between the two wars. Another reason why European
and Western states are more likely to support Ukraine than

(11:08):
support Iran is that ideologically, Ukraine is much more similar
to them than Iran is. According to the Economists Democracy Index,
Ukraine is number ninety two out of one hundred and
sixty seven countries, so it's somewhere in the middle of
the democracy ranking, and it has been invaded by Russia,

(11:29):
which is number one hundred and fifty, so it is
considered a true dictatorship. I think that seeing a state Ukraine,
which is more or less democratic, being invaded by a
dictatorship Russia is something which outraged European and Western governments
and people in a way that would not be felt

(11:49):
by Israel bombing Iran, which is number one hundred and
fifty four on the Democracy Index, so is also considered
a true dictatorship Israel is one one more thing. I
think that to a Western audience, it seems very clear
that Ukraine is defending itself. We are often seeing images, videos,

(12:10):
and reports of ordinary Ukrainians who have left their normal
jobs to fight against the Russian invasion, very close to
their own homes, often in the same region in which
they live. With the war between Israel and Iran, it
certainly is not clear that Iran is defending itself. As
your question stated, it is generally believed in the West

(12:32):
that all of the groups that frequently launch attacks on
Israel are funded and armed by Iran. That is Hezbula
in Lemanon Hamas in Gaza, the who these in Yemen,
and some other groups in Iraq and Syria. Because of this,
I think that governments and many people in the West
didn't see Israel's bombing of Iran as a clear attacker

(12:54):
against defender situation. Okay, I'm going to read a bit
more from Fatimah before continue. How is it that when
US troops come to the Middle East nearly eight thousand
miles beyond their borders, it is considered protecting the US.
But when Iran protects itself in its own region Middle
East from the invasive acts of Israel and the US,

(13:18):
it is considered a proxy. How is it that the
only country whoever invaded another country using a nuclear bomb
is considered peace keeping, but nuclear activities of a country
like Iran, who never ever has invaded any country is
considered peace threatening. What can it be called if not

(13:38):
a double standard? All right, Starting from the beginning, which
is a general criticism of the US, I think most
people in the world would agree with you. I'm just
going to find some data. Okay, it's a bit old,
but in twenty thirteen, a poll conducted in sixty five

(13:59):
countries gave the United States as the country that most
people thought was the biggest threat to world peace. You ask,
how is it that the US is considered a peacekeeper? Well,
it isn't by most people in the world. From what
I can see, I think most people in the world
would prefer to see the US have less of an

(14:19):
impact on the world's affairs. And actually, I think even
in the United States, the use of force abroad is
much less popular today than it has ever been. Generally,
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as failures,
and Donald Trump came to power on an isolationist platform,

(14:39):
saying that the US was going to stay out of
other countries. However, of course, Trump did approve bombing Iran's
nuclear facilities, which brings us to the last bit of
your question. Why is Iran perceived as a threat in
the US and other Western countries. I've already mentioned some
reasons that I think that ira Iran is seen as

(15:01):
a threat in the West, like its support of armed
groups that often attack Israel and its lack of democracy,
which hypocritically is tolerated in other countries if they are
not seen as a threat in other ways, like Saudi
Arabia for example. However, and now this is basically just
my opinion, I think that there is another reason that

(15:23):
people don't like to talk about, but I think it
is in the back of the minds of many senior
Western politicians, and that is the influence of Islamism, ji Huddism,
and most importantly martyrdom in Iran and the groups that
Iran supports. One of the reasons that Islamist jihadist groups

(15:44):
like Dash or al Qaida have been able to conduct
such large attacks in the past is because they don't
fear death. In fact, they welcome death and believe that
they will go to Heaven upon dying, becoming a martyr.
This is the same for jihadists around the world, who
clearly carry out attacks without any politics behind them at all.

(16:07):
For example, in Sri Lanka in twenty nineteen eight, suicide
bombers blew themselves up, killing two hundred and seventy people
in churches and hotels. There was no political motivation here
at all. It was just jihad and the belief that
they were doing God's work. The same is true of
a lot of Muslim on Muslim terrorism, or the massacres

(16:28):
of the Yazidi people and Shia Muslims by dysh in
twenty fourteen. In twenty fifteen, I'm not saying that today's
Iranian regime is similar to Dash or al Qaida, but
its religious fundamentalism and its praising of martyrdom are things
that Western leaders might think about. Supreme leader Ayatola Kamani

(16:50):
often praises jihad and martyrdom. Human rights groups like Amnesty
International say that Iran used child soldiers in the Iran
Iraq wild and there are many reports of children being
used in human wave attacks on Iraqi positions, leading to
many deaths of children who were later considered martyrs. That

(17:12):
was more than thirty years ago, but the same Iranian
regime is in place, and the Supreme leader today was
president back then. Now, if Western governments believe that the
Iranian regime is even slightly Ghadist and its leaders are
also fans of martyrdom and are not afraid of dying

(17:33):
for a religious cause, then we should also be able
to see why they are so scared of Iran having
a nuclear weapon. One of the main reasons that nuclear
weapons haven't been used in war since nineteen forty five
is the doctrine of mutual destruction, which is the idea
that if one nuclear armed country fires a nuclear weapon

(17:57):
at another one, then the second country would have a
small window of maybe fifteen minutes, in which it would
have the choice of firing nuclear weapons at the first country,
thus killing masses of people in both countries, including probably
those people that are making the decisions. This idea doesn't

(18:17):
work if one side is happy to die and doesn't
care about its people dying. I don't know, but maybe
this idea comes into the calculations of Western leaders who
frequently say that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, although
they never say it out loud. No matter what you
think about Israel's right to exist, you can understand how

(18:39):
it would be particularly scary for the people of Israel
if Iran had nuclear weapons. Here are some statements that
Ayatola Kameni has made about Israel in twenty thirteen. Israel
is a cancerous tumor that must be removed and eradicated.
In twenty fifteen, there will be no Zionist regime in

(19:00):
twenty five years. In twenty twenty three, this cancer will
definitely be eradicated, God willing. I hope that wasn't too depressing,
is the last question from Fatimah. Considering the double standard
of European countries, at least in dealing with what is
happening in West Asia, for instance, their definition of the

(19:22):
concepts of terrorism, peace and peace, threatening, invasion and defense,
human rights, etc. Which inevitably would reflect in their media
and their narratives, and considering the fact that in most
cases there is not such a thing as pure narrative
of an event, and usually there are some foregrounding and

(19:43):
exclusion in reporting any news. I'm interested to know what
your approach is to ensure that the news you choose
is not sourced from outlets with double standards, and that
it presents the most unbiased narrative possible when reporting an event.
Thank you for all the effort you put into releasing
the episode's daily best wishes, Fatima, Well, the truth is

(20:07):
we will never be able to get to a one
hundred percent bias free reporting of the news, but all
we can do is try as hard as possible to
reach it. Last year, we conducted a survey and about
four hundred listeners responded, and one of the questions was
do you think that sen seven has any bias? With

(20:27):
the options of left wing, right wing, or the option
of writing in their own opinion for a possible bias.
Eighty nine percent of people said that we had no bias,
with two percent each for left wing and right wing.
About five people wrote in answers saying that we were
either pro West or pro Israel or something like that.

(20:50):
Of course, it is possible that the survey results themselves
are biased, as people who think that the podcast is biased,
might just stop listening, But anyway, I was pretty happy
with these results. How do we ensure that the news
is not sourced from an outlet with double standards. Well,
one thing that we try to do is to name

(21:10):
the source if something is even a bit controversial. So
you will probably notice that whenever we talk about Israel Palestine,
which is, in my opinion, the most controversial topic in
the world, almost every sentence starts or ends with according
to blah blah or blah blah says that blah blah.

(21:31):
Like this, we can avoid taking responsibility for knowing what
is true, which is extremely difficult to know, and we
can just say what each side says, which I think
is more fair and responsible and leaves our listeners with
more information to make up their own minds. At the
same time, I know that this will not be good
enough for many people, and there will always be people

(21:53):
who think that we are biased in some direction. This
might sound cheesy, but I know deep in my heart
that I only want send seven to report as honestly
and truthfully as possible. I also know that I'm very
lucky that this podcast can say whatever it believes the
truth to be. If we were based in China, we

(22:14):
would not be able to say that there was a
massacre of students in Tiananmen Square in nineteen eighty nine.
If we were in Russia, we would not be able
to call the invasion of Ukraine an invasion or call
the war a war, because that is illegal. Being based
in the UK, there is no similar problem. There is
nothing that the government stops us from saying here, and

(22:36):
that isn't special to the UK, but it is a
luxury that only about fifty or seventy countries have, according
to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index last Christmas,
in the Last Ask Me Anything episode, Fatimah asked me
a similar question and I went into more detail about
why I think that some sources of information are better

(23:00):
than others. So if you'd like to listen to that,
it was released on this feed on Christmas Day last year.
I'll leave a link in the show notes too. I've
just been reminded of this quote, although I'm not sure
who actually said it. You can please all of the
people some of the time, you can please some of
the people all of the time, but you can't please

(23:22):
all of the people all of the time.

Speaker 7 (23:25):
Good morning, Stephen and the great Team of seven. This
is Xavier from Spain. I have a question regarding the
United Nations. Your Insecurity Council has great authority. Like five
primanent members keep their seats and can stop any decision
with the VETO, while ten elected members serve temporary terms.

(23:45):
Eighty years after the World War two, isn't it time
to end the veto and make all seats rotationally And
if so, how could your reform be put forward so
that we it cannot be held by a veto.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
Thanks very much, Avier, Thank you for that great question,
although I think you've kind of answered it yourself. You
are absolutely right that the United Nations Security Council is
out of date and needs reform. I think almost everyone
in the world would agree with that. The United States,
the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia are permanent members

(24:22):
and can veto any decision, and then there are ten
other members that change every two years, but they can't
veto decisions. The UK and France haven't used their vetos
in decades, but the US, Russia, and China often do
use their vetos on decisions that most of the rest
of the world agree on. For example, the US often

(24:44):
veto's resolutions that are related to Israel, sometimes even when
all fourteen other members are voting for it. Russia has
vetoed any resolutions that say that its soldiers should leave
Ukraine or that it's annexations of Ukraine and territory are illegal.
So yes, I think that almost everyone in the world

(25:06):
would agree that the way that the Security Council works
does not make sense. It also obviously doesn't live up
to its name. It doesn't provide security. However, the reality
is that I cannot see any way in which this
will change anytime soon. The current leadership of Russia, China,
and the US to give up the power that they

(25:27):
hold in the Security Council, and I think that the
only way that the system could change would be for
all of them to agree to give up power, at
least the veto power. We would probably need to see
complete changes in the leadership of China, Russia, and the
US before we can see the Security Council being changed.

Speaker 8 (25:47):
Hi, Stephen, this is Luity from Japan. I remember you've
talked about how to stay positive and optimistic under the news.
Every single day you're taking and you're covering news every
single day. Most of them are a fund and this
is my idea, so I'd like to know what you

(26:07):
think about it. The first, get ready for the fact
that most of the news are unexpected and not fun.
Get ready for it. And the second cover as many
various news as possible in order to think for myself
why such things are happening in the world. And third

(26:28):
and the final point is I'm trying to improve myself
in order to believe that the world is getting better.
It's my way, but I believe if I am improving
day by day, I can believe the world is also
getting better day by day.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Thanks Ritchie, it's a nice idea to improve yourself as
one little way to improve the world. When it comes
to reporting terrible news all the time, the truth is
that there are still some occasions when it does get
to me and it does make me feel bad. But
generally I also recognize that the reason that something is

(27:07):
included in the news is because it is surprising or
different to what is normal, and generally those things are bad.
We don't report on all of the hundreds of thousands
of train journeys which were successful each day because that
is just normal. But then when there is a trained crash,

(27:28):
we report on it. In the same way. We don't
report on the fact that Namibia has been at peace
for thirty years or Costa Rica has been at peace
for seventy years, but we do report on wars every day.
To make a balance in the podcast, we do try
to highlight some good things that happen, like scientific innovations

(27:50):
or maybe just some funny or strange things that have happened. Personally,
despite reading and reporting on bad news every day, I'm
actually a very optimist stick person. Despite all of the
bad things that happen in our world, I still think
that today is the best time to be alive. Francine
in France has a question about becoming a seven supporter.

Speaker 5 (28:12):
Hello, I'm Francing in France. I would like to know
because I would like to become superter. I would like
to know our what is the purpose with my money
and if the site is the secure when I will pay?

(28:34):
Thank you for your reply.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
Hi Francine, thank you for wanting to become a supporter.
We use our website hosting platform for receiving payments. That
is Wix, which is one of the biggest website hosting
platforms in the world, and there's also the option to
use PayPal too if you prefer. We have never had
any problem with it. I don't really know what else

(28:57):
to say.

Speaker 5 (28:58):
Thanks.

Speaker 1 (28:59):
Here is a another one from France. This is Ben.

Speaker 9 (29:03):
Host even what's your view on the western region of Ukraine?
Do you think are there are cities that are safe
to visit at the moment? Also I want to ask
a personal question, have you always been a journalist or
did you work in the difference industry before becoming a journalist.

(29:28):
That's it. Thank you for Thank you for the podcast.
Keep up the good work. Thank you Ben and Juliett
as well. Have a nice day.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
Thanks Ben. Regarding Ukraine, yes, I definitely think that it
is relatively safe to visit western Ukraine and even central
Ukraine and the capital Kiev. The truth is Russia fires
missiles and drones at Ukraine almost every day and they
do hit every part of the country sometimes and there
have been some deaths close to the Polish border. However,

(30:02):
these are relatively uncommon. If I didn't have a young family,
then I definitely would have gone to Ukraine over the
last three years, and I have friends who have been
many times over the last three years, I would not
recommend going into any of the regions where Russia is
occupying any territory though, which is now seven regions Rasson, Zaparija, Donetsk, Luhansk,

(30:25):
Kharkiv and Sumi, as well as the Peninsula of Cromea
which you wouldn't be able to get to without going
through Russia anyway. In all of these areas, civilian deaths
are much more common. I went to Ukraine in twenty twenty,
so during the don Bas War, but before the full
scale invasion. I look forward to going back. Regarding myself,

(30:46):
I have been a teacher most of my life, teaching
English in many countries and then teaching in primary school
in England. However, I've always been a total news addict,
consuming hours of news every day in various forms, and
I'm a geography nerd and history nerd as well. I've
visited over sixty countries, most of them for weeks at

(31:09):
a time, and I've lived and worked in France, Spain, Australia, Thailand,
India and Argentina. I've spoken about this when I've been
a guest on other people's podcasts, but one of the
main reasons that I decided to start sent seven was
because I know that listening to the news in French
and Spanish greatly helped me to improve my abilities in

(31:30):
those languages, and that ties in nicely to this emailed
question from Matt in Japan. Is this your full time
job or do you have a separate job you work
full time on on top of doing this podcast. The
podcast is my full time job. It's been exactly two
years since i left my job as a primary school teacher,

(31:52):
and I've been living only from the podcast since then.
Before then, I basically had two full time jobs, which
was really crazy. Although now I have a tiny baby,
I feel like I've got two full time jobs again.
I'm the only full time member of staff four seven.
Juliet works for the Financial Times. Continuing with this theme,

(32:14):
we've got another emailed question from Elena, a teacher from Italy.
I am a science teacher in an upper secondary school
and I do love my job. Since you were a
teacher as well, do you ever miss your previous job
or have you ever regretted quitting it? Thanks Elena, I'm
really happy that you enjoy your job. Yeah, I do

(32:37):
miss it sometimes. I've worked teaching all ages from small
children to older adults. But lastly I was teaching primary
school children aged eight to eleven. It was a really
difficult job, but it was very rewarding. I would have
happily continued being a teacher, but I just couldn't do
both teaching and the podcast anymore. All Right, that's it.

(33:00):
I'll do another one of these ask Me Anything episodes
at Christmas. But you can send me questions anytime you
like to podcast at senseven dot org or by sending
a voice message at senseven dot org. One last massive
thank you to all the sen seven supporters. Thank you
for letting me have my dream job. And if you

(33:21):
are in the Northern Hemisphere, I hope you're having a
great summer. And if you're in the Southern Hemisphere, I
hope you're having a great winter. Bye.