 So here we are. I mean, we've been, you know, you and other people we know been framing, you know, alternatives to the LMS and the idea of working on the open web. I mean, these are not radical ideas. They've been around a long time. But, you know, the experience you're talking about at Sloan Sea or the experience I still have is that when you frame these ideas to people, it still sounds like this kind of crazy out there idea, you know, these many years on. Is it just because the LMS is so much more entrenched and monolithic in strategies now? So the alternatives just aren't visible to people? Is it a failure on the part of people like us to make these alternatives more compelling? Like, where do you think that's coming from? You know, that's a really good question. And I think the argument that back in 2007, John Udell tried to make. And John Udell, who's a kind of, you know, you call a technologist who wrote a lot about technology, kind of thought about social media early on, he made the argument that it's still an issue of coherence. It's still an issue of people being, even if it's irrational, concerned when it comes to these environments of having all these different kind of identities in all these different places. And I think you would imagine, you know, in 2014, as web 2.0 kind of came and went, that the idea of having multiple identities in multiple spaces should not seem unrealistic or even a kind of burden. But it seems like when we come to these educational systems, it is. And I don't know if that's because of faculty, of students, of technologists, of this idea of the monolithic system. I don't, frankly, I don't know. But I think the question came up more recently about the idea of, you know, where do we expect that kind of coherence anywhere else? Like, and I can't point to too many places, and I don't know if coherence is a good enough argument against it, but it's what you'll often hear from faculty, from students, and from administrators alike. And frankly, more and more, for us, at least at Merrill, Washington, we're pushing back upon that by framing it not around the technology or a system, but around the questions of identity and the digital. And when you start framing it around that, where people have to own and manage their own identity, the discussion, it just changes the very axis of the discussion. It's not about a course, right? It's about a person. And it's about that person's relationship in a network of people in a community of teaching and learning. And I think we have kind of been doing work around those questions. So I think it's about changing the discussion from the LMS or the LMS and and talking about it in more curricular, broader, philosophical questions around identity. Or just if I'm understanding you right, like even as opposed to a set of tools that will allow you to perform this set of functions to get you to this specific course objective, to recognize that higher education is a space where we're actually kind of grappling with technology change and all aspects of our life, and particularly areas that are really central to what higher ed does, you know, communication, research, collaboration, cooperation, and and deal with that. Because I think as long as we're in this space where we're providing services, we're never going to get out of it. So there was an article in today just came out in Inside Higher Ed and it was it was a kind of a case study of two or three different universities and the process they went to to choose an LMS. And it was one of the first things I read this morning and it sent me into a bit of a depressive spiral. And just like a representative quote, and it was more the quotes from the people in the article. So there was one where as a professor of finance at Northwestern University, and this is very emblematic of the quotes and the whole thing, I don't care about learning management systems, the less time I need to spend with the system, the better off I am. Now to that point, I get it. But if I need to think about it, that's a problem. And I'm just, I find it, you know, troubling because I wonder about what other elements in higher education would a faculty member insist that thinking is a bad thing? Yeah. And it's the question that goes back to, and I think you did this, a great job of this in the article is, you know, at the point at which we talk about the technology as neutral or invisible, is at the point that we kind of in some ways, erase the very kind of systems that inform and create these relations of power that in some ways we want to ignore. And I think the power relations that come out, particularly when you start thinking about Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. These are real, and they're defining our culture. And I don't think we're doing anything to prepare our students for what that means, regardless of discipline. And it's also another reason to kind of ghettoize, to kind of resist the ghettoization of this is media studies, or this is, you know, digital studies. No, this is everything everywhere now, informed by this. And it's hard to imagine actually a discipline that's practicing right now that hasn't been forced to reckon with digital technologies and how it affects their discipline. But you're right, it gets if it's dealt with in an academic level, it'll be in media studies. Or, you know, it gets sent to the to the level of a technologist. And I most institutions, if there is a history of technology units, you know, 25 years ago, units that did instructional technology, we're working with film projectors and, and slideshows. So, you know, that I think is kind of revealing what how these departments are thought of today.