Hi Jake! That is exactly what the code in the article does, isn't it? promise.catch(() => {}) It does follow up with "this doesn't change the promises ot

Hi Jake! That is exactly what the code in the article does, isn't it? promise.catch(() => {}) It does follow up with "this doesn't change the promises other than marking them as 'handled'. They're still rejected promises" but that doesn't seem right - they become fulfilled promises with a value of undefined, and those values will definitely show up in the for loop later. Is there something I'm missing with the nested promises? My suggestion was in the spirit of keeping this behaviour the same, except I think explicitly adding the catch handler to fetch() is the right way to do it vs an auxiliary function to 'silence' them.