Andy Lowery

Yes.

Will they build the big exquisite machines still into the future on a very robust, well-exercised process?

Yes, I still think there's a big place for them in the future world.

But will they be the ones that can make the mice traps and all the things that need to come out in a month-to-month-to-month type iterative cycle and risk a lot of money up in the front end of the thing to make it all work?

They're not really set up to do that.

And the only way that I could see them becoming more like that is if they were to take a risk and, let's say, buy EPRIS and then let us operate exactly like we've been operating

under our investors and our board that we're under now just operate the same, but be under their umbrella, so to speak, or their brand, but still operate the way that we've been operating.

I could see that being one way.

Is that starting to happen?

I've seen it in bits, like Lockheed you mentioned.

I know they have a big fund that basically funds different small companies that they find having a lot of potential.

I'm not sure how many of those are transitioning yet to acquisition, but I think that's the intent is to basically get involved by finding ones that have a real win

you know, and then transitioning them into a growth phase.

Okay.

Because, you know, as you start to scale and you're talking about field service operators out in the field, you're talking about people all over the world that are needing support maintaining these systems, logistics for these systems, all the mill PF type stuff that people talk a lot about.

All of that

the primes do well.

They're well situated.

They're well staffed.

They have people all over the world.