 Jim, here we are. It's been quite a ride. We're just days away as we record this from the publication of an article. What did we call it? Reclaiming innovation. It's been a months-long journey for both of us. I guess this is a video compliment to that. I don't think any of us really quite know where it's going to go. I guess we could start just even by talking about how this article came about, which I guess would be putting it in your court, because I think it started with you. The article, as I remember, was going to kind of be about the work that's happening at Mary Washington right now around the initiative called Domain of One's Own. And that was something I was interested in, but you were talking about this question of innovation, and you were talking about this question of disruption and some of the problems with it. And obviously you've been blogging about it. And when I reached out to Teddy and she was kind of open to the idea, I immediately looped you in with the idea that we kind of revisit some of the work we did what's almost four years ago now with the Nevermind the Edgypunks, because I felt like there was a moment of revisiting some of this stuff. And the other thing is you did a lot of the work on the first article, so I was hoping you would carry me through the second one. Although I think we both know that that was part of the problem with writing this article in general. I think that's a dysfunction we share is that we count on the other person to carry the other. And it's kind of like that biblical parable, but the footprints in the stand, except there's just like two guys standing on the beach, looking at each other, waiting for the other one to pick them up. I was like, okay, I brought Brian in, he must be excited. He's going to do some of the work, or at least he'll do most of the work was as I was originally imagining it because I'm just a good looks at the organization. But it turns out that we both didn't do much for a long time. To be honest. Besides my own usual dysfunctions, I actually did find this article really challenging and kind of scary to write. I had to kind of confront some demons and some doubts that have been dogging me that have quite little to do with the writing process. I and I hope we kind of touch at some of this in the article, but it really feels like and you know, we may go back a bit that, you know, some of the I feel like a lot of the trend lines have been happening in education technology over the last few years haven't necessarily broken the way I wanted to. And I felt like, you know, I felt like I was trying to make arguments or that we were trying to make arguments that kind of feel to me like they're kind of cutting against some of the prevailing trends in the field or the stuff that tends to typically get buzz, especially when associated with a word like innovation. I don't know if that's how you see it, but that I felt, yeah, I felt a certain amount of additional pressure because I felt like there's a set of ideas and principles that I think are in your work, certainly in the team at UMW and a lot of the people we mutually admire. And yeah, I was feeling a certain amount of pressure to try to articulate those concepts. And I'm not sure we did, to be honest, but yeah, that's that's honestly what made the article hard for me, you know, to echo some of that stuff. The article is hard for me to write because I was focusing in my mind so much on the main of one's own and not about a broader picture. And that's what you brought in with that first part about innovation and disruption and kind of providing a far broader context, which enabled me to start thinking about the history of the internet, where higher ed fits in there. And also, the real problem I had writing this was, I can only write right now for a blog. I don't know what it's like to write for a publication. So, you know, once we, you know, Teddy came to us and said, look, you need to have something, you wouldn't made an agreement. I just started blogging and blogging. And I really you can see the parts that I published as part of this article, which I'm actually really proud of, were actually blog posts that were reworked. And I went back to a blog post I wrote for the canvas blog, which was about the cyber infrastructure and a lot of the stuff you tell it talked about. So it's interesting where it was a kind of formalization of a lot of the ideas I've had out there. But the process as painful as it was early on, because I really didn't know if we would come up with something really helped me kind of synthesize what I think is a kind of a larger argument right now about the field, which is kind of why I'm excited we even went through this painful process to begin with. So you were you were kind of when you talk about, you know, the relationship of blogging to an article, the one thing I find awesome about blogging is it's very good for ideas when you're trying to work them out, maybe you're not quite sure they're their sound ideas. So it's a wonderful way to put something out there. And if you're completely wrong, you can be reasonably confident somebody I'll push back against you, or maybe they'll just tell you or they'll embellish your idea in some way. I find it very difficult in terms of voice though. Because I think I write my blog for about five people. And I almost envision them in the room with me. And when you're writing for a magazine like Educa's review, you almost I feel pressure to actually communicate with a broad swath of people. And you can't take certain things for granted when you do that. Now that's I mean, that's an excellent point. And the people who, while I was writing that who reminded me about that were Chris Lott, Scott Leslie, kind of pushing back on some of my assumptions about the golden age of higher ed, and the early web and what that meant. So I agree with that. But it also was interesting how much Teddy, to be fair, was a third writer in this article because we did have two voices struggling with two different ideas. And the way in which she brought together a lot of what we were talking about. When I read the article after we've initially put our first draft in, which was rough to say the least, I was found it remarkable how much it kind of gelled. And now that third piece of it was really essential. So it was actually I found it a really, as much as it was an intimidating writing process up front, I found it really a kind of, how do I say, rewarding one. Because I don't know, I felt like, you know, some of those blog posts, which are half baked ideas, sometimes it's nice to see them more formalized. That makes any sense. Absolutely. Yeah, no, Teddy's always an awesome editor to work with. But she definitely earned her stripes on this one. We put her through hell, not just with the deadlines and stuff like that. But yeah, I mean, it was it was a challenging piece, more so than than usual, I think, to kind of get what where where we were thinking of these things in our own words and trying to communicate them in a kind of a more kind of clear and cogent form and a more unified form. So yeah, can't say enough about what Teddy did there. Yeah. And then on top of it, we have to do the multimedia stuff, right? It just never ends. It doesn't. Well, and this thing to note, too, is that you mentioned that the whole reason we did this article was to feature Domain of One's Own. And it's not actually mentioned anywhere in the which was I think was interesting. But I also once we started going through the article, I thought it was important because part of the early struggle I had with making it a piece about Domain of One's Own is, does it become a piece about a particular initiative and not about a broader vision of the field? Which I think what is what I liked a lot about that 2010 article, never mind the edgy punks, is it was kind of a kind of a litmus test of where we're at. And I think this article, and maybe that's why deep down subconsciously, I did reach out to you as soon as Teddy was into it, because maybe we did need to revisit some of that stuff.