Yes. David, obviously, these are confidential negotiations and so I can’t go into too much detail. I mean, it is fair to say that we’ve been leading the intellectual debate among media companies on AI, and also fair to say that we’re probably leading the commercial discussions. I mean, 17 years ago, when prestige-craving media executives were sashaying with Silicon Valley, we were raising doubts, doubts about provenance, but also about the baleful impact on vulnerable young people, the smartest engineers on the planet, creating compulsive, addictive experiences. Anyway, we’re certainly not naive as well about the potentially positive and negative impacts of AI on our journalism, our creativity, our content. We’ve had almost two decades of distribution dominating creation and almost 60% or so of journalists have lost jobs in the U.S. And candidly, unfortunately, a certain percentage of that is down to journalistic pomposity and prize consciousness, not audience consciousness and relevance consciousness. But AI is a hyper-effective form of or gen AI is a hyper-effective form of derivative distribution. It’s retrospective, not prospective, and the thoughtful AI companies understand that fact, and so that’s why on this occasion, I would like to highlight the thoughtfulness of Sam Altman. Thoughtful people do understand that counterfeiting is not creating, and crucially, in this exceedingly erratic era, we have deep facts, not deep fakes.