 I'm absolutely delighted to be here to speak to the forum today because I have been struggling for something like two decades trying to convey to my colleagues in English department. The real import of the digital shift. And in fact, that's the subject of my latest book. So I'll be delighted to share those thoughts with you today. And right now I'll just go to my PowerPoint. So it may seem strange that I say that I was struggling to convey this, but to my colleagues in English departments. Often it seems as though nothing has changed because they had print books before the advent of the computer era, and they have print books now so what's the big deal. So we can illustrate that here by looking at two versions of Faulkner's sound and theory. And on the left screen we see a very pricey first edition of the hardback. This was this was undoubtedly produced with movable type. I doubt if even a, even a rotary printer was used because it has that early 20th century date on the left we see a very recent edition. In all likelihood if you ordered this edition from Amazon, it would be printed using create space from the files that they already have and deliver to you the next day. So that's the question what is the difference between these two versions of this text, besides the price of course. Well as librarians, you know very well that you would shelve the first edition in your rare book room in all likelihood. The other would be on the stack. But the difference that I'm especially interested in here today is not that difference. It's the difference in how the artifact was produced. My colleagues who think nothing much has changed about books are thinking of the books as an isolated object. But archaeologists know that if you want to really understand an artifact you have to consider the artifact in its context. To tell about 1950. There were important innovations in print technology color lithography for example. But it wasn't until about the 1950s that computation really began to be an important point. And so I refer to print as all those books produced from Gutenberg up until mid 20th century. I use the term post print to indicate books produced after about 2000 when computational media had penetrated by that point into almost every aspect of the book trade. So I approached the idea of post print through another idea that I had been developing through a series of books most recently in my book called unthought. And that is the idea of cognitive assemblages, which I define as collectivities through which information interpretation and meaning circulate. And these cognitive assemblages can include humans they can include non human life forms for example bacteria, and they can include computational media. And in a larger argument I won't have time to make here. I argue that all of these entities have cognitive capabilities that all non human life forms have cognitive capabilities humans of course do as well, and also cognitive media computational media. So, another claim I make is that most of the world's work now in develop societies is done through cognitive assemblages. And that's because computational media have penetrated deeply into the infrastructures of develop societies because they are the controllers disseminators and modulators of information. Previously, previously, eclectromechanical systems now almost all have cognitive computational media as controllers embedded within them. And it's these computational media that really control how the work is done. So, in my view, cognitive assemblages have two faces like Janice, one of the faces of a cognitive assemblage faces toward information flows. And here the emphasis is on the kind of data that how fast the data is moving the conduits through which it's moving and so forth. But the other side faces toward embodied and material entities. So, in order to produce an information flow there has to be some material entity. It could be a machine it could be a life form it could be a human, but there has to be some embodied entity to create that information flow in the first place. So, if we consider a cognitive assemblage in terms of a book. If we take an ordinary book, what else is included to activate that book. Well, of course there's the human reader, but every book that's published now except for a very few done with fine art presses also has a computational reader. The book exists in its material form as an artifact, but it also exists as computer files. And, in addition to the readers of the computer and the human, there are also all the readers at the press some human some computational that are doing the design the editing and the production of the book. And then in addition to that there's all the warehousing storage sales display advertising and so forth, all of which is likely involves some degree of computational media. So in producing this book, I wanted to play on some of the material qualities of the book to emphasize that all of these marks on the page are what Dennis tenon calls laminate signifiers. So the idea is they appear as fixed immovable marks, once they're printed, but every one of those marks has computational code underlying it in the code files associated with the book. So my idea was to create a few pages in the book that would act like x rays. The idea is they would draw the reader's attention to the underlying code. So there would be a passage on, say the left hand page, which would be in bold type, and then on the right hand page would be the computer codes corresponding to that passage that made it be able to be printed. It proved to be more difficult that I had anticipated in the abstract, and I was working with the press designer, who was a great designer but not very, not very conversant and computer codes. So, in many cases we had to. I had to compromise a bit on what I had in mind, but I did finally get 10 x-ray pages included in the book. And each of those pages had to be hand designed to make the content flow come out right. So here's an example of one of the x-ray pages this is kind of a cheat because it's not the binary code for say a paragraph on the facing page that would have been way way too long to include. So we compromised by just including the binary code for a single sentence, a computer manipulates binary codes of ones and zeros, and then facing the binary code is a table correlating the binary code with the ASCII symbols. So that's an example of what counts as an x-ray page in this book. Here's another example where on the left side you see a bolded passage, and then on the right side you see the HTML coding for that passage. Besides the trying to reify the idea of the laminate signifier through design, I also wanted to talk about the technologies that were gradually being interpenetrated by computational media. And of course it's somewhat arbitrary how you date this but I started with the page compositor, which was invented in the 1880s by James Page and had as its most famous investor Mark Twain. And Page's mistake was to try to duplicate with the compositor all the motions that a human compositor would do. And this made the machine so cumbersome that it could never be made commercially successful. It was used by a newspaper for two months, broke down repeatedly. Page was the only one who knew enough to repair it. And so finally they gave up and thereafter it was never used. There is only one still extant, which is at the Mark Twain Museum in Connecticut. Cornell University had one. But during World War II it donated it to be used for scrap iron in the war effort. So now there's only one. The next important event that I trace in the technology producing books was the Luma type phototype setter. And this was produced by Moira and Higanon in 1947. They succeeded in attracting some funding, and it fundamentally altered the way that typesetting was done because as it's the first book proclaims that was produced by it which was the wonderful life of insects. It has a special page inserted at the end pointing out that this is the first book ever produced that did not use metal type pieces. And that extra page at the end confidently predicts this is going to be the wave of the future. The next nodal point I touch on is the fiber optic cable that was used in computer assisted typesetter. It was not a great success commercially in typesetting, but it really transformed how information was conveyed from one point to the other. The next one is the Xerox docutech. This was the machine first launched in 1990 that used a fully computerized set of software to produce the book copies, and it really was the machine that made books on demand possible. And then I conclude with the Amazon Kindle and the Mac iPad as examples of ebook readers. In addition to a chapter tracing the technology of typesetting and printing, and the way that computational media interpenetrated that process. I also made a visit to five university presses to try to determine how presses were dealing with the shift to computational media. You can see there on the screen the five presses I visited. These are all presses with which I had some form of relationship so I felt emboldened to take up some of their time and in interviewing them. And I talked to both the directors at each of these presses and also staff members. And it was clear that there were significant changes in the process of editing and design. For example, the use of computational templates in the design for a book. It was also very clear that there was there were considerable changes in sales and distribution, especially with Amazon is their biggest customer and made a huge difference in how they had to manage their workflow. Well, for each of these five presses, it was also clear to me that the cultural authority of the book remains, and many of the heroes unsung heroes at these presses who are dedicated to bringing the best of scholarship to the world. What they have as their primary image of what what it is they're doing, the book, the print book, as one of my interlocutor cell said we sell books, we market formats. Well of course the print book is a format, but for this person the idea of the book, the idea of the book we might even call it the ideology of the book is what was primary. So everywhere. I went at these five presses. People talked about the precarity of their situation and trying to produce scholarly monographs. To just run through the figures for a typical case and of course it's difficult to generalize because the production cost depends on length on whether it has images and so on and so forth. But in a typical case it costs about $25,000 to produce a typical monograph. And if we assume a list price and of $60 and a net of $42. This means the press has to sell 600 copies of a print book in order to make back their costs, but increasingly the sales of scholarly monographs are decreasing. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was typical for a well reviewed book to sell 2500 to 3000 copies. Now, even if the book is regarded as important men is well reviewed, the press is lucky to sell as few as 400 copies. And I guess that for every book they produce they're running a deficit, typically of about $8,000. And if they are sold through Amazon, rather than the press's website the net is even lower because Amazon takes half. So clearly, this is not a sustainable business model. And how are the presses coping. The press is coping in a slightly different way. Columbia, for example, Jennifer crew, the director of Columbia puts a great deal of emphasis on what she calls the right mix. So what she means by that is that every once in a while, one of the books that the press publishes will sell far far more copies than is typical. That that high selling book can carry along several other low selling books and still make it come out even in Chicago which is the largest of these university presses. They have their distribution center where, which serves to just distribute for about 100 other presses, and they make considerable profits from their distribution center which allows them to carry on Duke University has taken yet another task. Steve calm the director there told me straight out. We don't publish monographs. And when we do, it's a failure. And I asked him to define what do you mean by a monograph. And he defined it exactly as I would a scholarly book aimed at specialists that doesn't have much classroom adoption potential. Minnesota is perhaps the most adventuresome of these five presses. It's using its profits elsewhere in its sales portfolio to bankroll what they call the manifold project. The manifold project is an adventuresome project that takes a print book and networks it. So the book is available in print just as it ordinarily would but it's accompanied by a web project that will include a lot of material that the print book can't. So that's a kind of an all in sort of approach. They don't expect to make money out of the manifold project but what they do expect to do is to use the scholarly resources of the web to enhance scholarship and enrich the final product, so that it's much more useful for researchers to put where the print book alone. And then at California there's the luminous project. So the luminous project in brief has as its strategy, displacing the cost of producing the book from the press on to the writer. So for their books they require at least a $7500 subvention from the author and or the author's institution. This immediately sets up a problematic distinction between scholars who come from well financed institutions who can afford this kind of subvention and scholars who come from more modest institutions that cannot afford this subvention. And they've developed various strategies to compensate for this like having a fund for those authors and so forth. They also make all of their books available free on the web. So that's the payoff. The author contributes to the cost of producing the book, but the book is put on the web and is, and is available to anyone anywhere in the world free of cost. So their view is that this really stimulates the uptake of scholarship, especially in the global south. So they're seeing a lot of uptake in Vietnam, for example in Brazil in Korea. All of the books in the luminous project that are available for free on the web can also be purchased as books on demand, print on demand. But when a print on demand book is is sold. The profits from that print on demand book do not go back to the author they go into the luminous project to further fund the cost of producing the book. The luminous project has its defenders. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, for example, is on the board and she's also art and defender of open access publishing. If we look at the true cost of publishing a monograph. It's interesting to look at the Ithaca s plus our report on this so Ithaca s plus our got a melon grant to determine what was the actual cost of producing a monograph. They convened a panel of experts, and the experts were asked to consider both direct and indirect presses. They contacted 20 university presses and got figures for all of the direct and indirect costs that go into publishing. And their totals range from a low of 15,000 per book to a high of 129,000. So if we take a midpoint of say 35,000 to produce a book, then it's questionable whether the luminous project could continue because the true costs of producing the book are going to be much more than that. 7500 in fact they would need to absorb about $27,000 for every book. And publishing more books doesn't solve this problem it only makes it worse because the more books they publish, the greater the deficit. They also face a problem that if they're offering a deal to writers okay you give us 7500 we'll put your book on the web for free, I mean free to readers. Other companies, perhaps less scrupulous can compete saying well, we'll put your book on the web for only $5,000. It creates what Alan Thomas at Chicago calls the race to the bottom, where now the economics take first priority, not the quality oh and I should add that all of the books that are in the luminous project go through exactly the same peer review, rigorous screening that all their print books do. Now having sort of race through the economics of book publishing. We might ask, I've talked about the the laminate signifier, the way that computational media are affected production processes and so forth, but how does it appear in the content. So, I have a chapter about this topic where I compare two very different cases. The first case is a book by Amaranth Borsak and Brad Bose called between page and screen. This is a very innovative book, because it has no words in it, it only only has icons that only the computer can read. So you initialize your computer at their website. And then you hold the book page of the book up so that it can be seen by the webcam on your computer. And then in the space, sort of between you and the computer, the words are projected and you can see that in the image there with Amaranth holding the book and seeing the text appear. And this allows all kinds of very innovative effects so it's a book that can only be read by a computer. But unfortunately this book is programmed in flash and you see in one of the x-ray pages a little flash code at the bottom. As you probably know flash was no longer supported at the end of 2020. So many works including this book are now unplayable which is one of the primary obstacles to creating electronic literature problem of obsolescence. And here you see the book being held up to the webcam and then the image being created. This actually is a little animation so it's quite innovative on what a print book can do. The contrasting case is a few pages from Mertha Dermasash's Asemic Writing. So Asemic writing can be thought of as mark making but mark making that never resolves into alphabetic symbols. And I'm careful to say that it's not marks without significance because the whole idea of Asemic writing is that this kind of writing in fact can have significance. It has its own rhythm. It has its own progression of forms as you can see in the page there. Mertha Dermasash died in 2012. She was from Argentina so I was fortunate to be able to get permission from her state to reproduce a few pages from her book of Asemic writing. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your attention. Here's my email and website. Don't visit the website right away because it's being revised as we speak. It'll be ready next week. In any event, thank you very much and I welcome all of your thoughts and questions and comments on this. Excuse me. Yeah, thank you. Okay, that's a really interesting and stimulating presentation. I've been thinking about some of the issues that you've, you've addressed and I mean one of the things that struck me is that whether or not the question of whether or not the technology shift has really shifted the type of books, scholarly books in particular that are being published. And there's a couple of examples there. And in fact in your own book, you gave us the example of these are the x-ray pages, but it strikes me and maybe it's because of the fear of the technology shifting. It strikes me that they're very rare in terms of, you know, the typical scholarly monograph is pretty much as it has been for decades now. And I wonder if you're seeing a beginning of a shift in terms of the sorts of books people are writing or is it still very much in that Well, what I see is a movement toward kind of dual track, especially among other younger scholars. So the, the idea is to produce the traditional scholarly monograph to make sure you have your bona fides in that area established for when you apply for tenure. There's no time to establish a website or a series of websites a very well researched blog. And often the website or in particular the blogs have a more public facing dimension than a scholarly book does. So they're written for larger audiences, and compared to scholarly books the influence of a website can be massive. So, you know, we, we, we have this that maybe 400 copies of a scholarly book are read and okay, let's say people may check it out from the library. So you can't just rely on sales but it's likely that scholarly monographs may only have on the order of 1000 or 2000 readers. But if you have a wealth instructed website, you're talking about reaching people in the thousands, or even the hundreds of thousands. So I think here as an example of Todd Pressner's hyper cities website, which was developed to reach out to people worldwide, where they had a platform where they could incorporate local information about their particular neighborhood their city their town, and all of the facilities were there that made it easy to do, and to connect with people all over the world. So hyper cities has something like 100 to 200,000 users. So it really raises the question for tenure committees, how do you wait influence versus quality. So, of course, there are also ways that are now codified by the MLA of how you determine the quality of a website. But this is a slightly different issue it's, you know, how do you rate a first rate scholarly book that reaches 1000 people, compared to a website that reaches 100,000. So I think tenure committees across the country are wrestling with questions exactly like this. And people at the presses university presses are very much aware that for many institutions the scholarly press monograph remains the gold standard in the humanities. And they feel that as a burden upon themselves you know they, they say we don't want to determine people's tenure that's not our business our business is just to publish first grade scholarship. So they don't want to see institutions offload tenure decisions on whether or not they have a university press monograph. Still, it's a strange situation where if someone has a scholarly monograph and there's a competitor who has a really well done website in the same department in the department's decided only one of these two people is going to get tenure. How do they, how do they evaluate the worth of the value of those two very different kinds of projects. So, one of the one of the good things I think about this dual track approach that I see many younger scholars take is that it's also broadening the rhetoric of scholarship. So it's creating more of a public more of a public for general scholarship, then certainly was the case during the 1980s and 1990s when deconstruction made literary books anyway incomprehensible to the general public. So it's a very good thing that younger scholars are thinking about how to make their issues relevant to a larger audience. I think that can ultimately only be good for scholarship and for the whole enterprise of scholarship in general. And within the questions and there's a, there's a couple of points picking up exactly on that so a Brian Alexander has has picked up on that in terms of web content, which is a supplement to the monograph and he's got a couple of examples that I wasn't aware of a one calls blogging about his book on Napoleon in Egypt or another one from Nathan Grawls posting data sets and visualizations on to go to go with a book on the demographics of higher education. So I guess that's the sort of a mixed model isn't it you've got the monograph, the traditional monograph but then you've got this additional information and materials available online. And I'm very familiar with that model because I did exactly that with my book called how we think I created a companion website that had part a chapter in the print book was on telegraph code books. The website included a database of 150 telegraph code books that could be searched in a number of different ways. It included all the audio of interviews I did in conjunction with that book. And now we come to the problem of obsolescence where there's two problems with this approach. There's obsolescence. So the databases that I included in that companion to my book, the web companion were coded with a special form of SQL that is not now supported by most web portals. I was hosting it at one web portal and they told me that they couldn't continue because they didn't, their new platform did not interface with that with that particular podium. So those databases now are in operative. The second problem with that approach is that when you create a digital companion. You're still creating one website amongst millions or hundreds of millions on the web. And so it's very difficult for people to find it unless they happen to read your book and then you say in your book. Well there's this companion website, but that's the argument that Doug Armato uses for the manifold project that instead of trying to create your own little website to go along with your book. So it's very simple. Then you have a whole big set of websites that serve exactly this purpose but now have a much larger web presence than any one individual website. And that sort of leads very neatly into a question that Adnan Audi has asked about what, you know, does the library community have a responsibility here in terms of preserving that material? Is that something that we should be doing? I'm paraphrasing slightly, but is that something that we should be doing? Is that our responsibility? And then how you then address the example that you gave around Flash, you know, and then the Flash content as well. That's only readable if you have access to that. So how much of a role, you know, for the traditional, you know, if you see the library as being the traditional preservation mechanism for a lot of this material, is this something that we should be moving into as a community? Well, the more you work with digital media, the more you come to appreciate the truth that the archival medium par excellence is print. You know, you can go back to a first edition of Principia Mathematica published in the 15th century, open it up and the pages are just as pristine as they were when it was first published. What is the lifetime of digital media? Well, Flash is a perfect example. Flash was here for maybe 20 years, and the field of electronic literature flourished on all these flashworks that were created, and all of those works are now obsolete, and they have to be reprogrammed in order to be playable. So in my view, it's really not practical for libraries to get into the idea of archiving electronic material, unless they want to do that for a special collection sort of way. I mentioned the field of electronic literature and Demi Grigar at Washington State University of Vancouver has launched a massive archival project to recover those lost works of electronic literature. So what does that entail? Well, it entails keeping the old machines running. You have the old machines so you can see the work as they were originally intended on an Apple, early Apple computer, for example. It entails emulating a lot of those works on modern computers, and it entails reprogramming them so you can get some sort of equivalent in a different kind of program. And just to list this shows you what a massive enterprise that is, and I can see that a library might choose this to do, to do this for some small collection. I don't think it's going to be feasible on a massive scale, just because it's so labor intensive and money intensive. Yes, the idea of say all of our members within our UK, providing that type of service seems quite, it seems difficult to envisage that happening and it seems as if there will be some perhaps some centers of expertise on this that are able to manage that process as you described. But it seems unlikely that it will be wider than that. I wanted to turn, if I could, to some of the issues around university presses and costs. So there's been some questions about whether or not the, the shift to digital has has pushed a lot of the work or more of the work on to the author. You know, in the old days, as you said, you know, there would have been type setting taking place within a printers. That doesn't happen now a lot of formatting is done by the author as they're writing the book. Does that bring costs down in terms of producing monographs and you know there's a lot that some of the labor is being shifted over towards the creator. Well, this is a multi prong problem. The short answer is to produce a really good book takes money. And it's not only production money, but it's money and editing. So, I think of Alan Thomas and editor at the University of Chicago press, who is a wonderful editor he's been my editor for for 20 years. But in each project he takes on he wants to work with the author to improve the book. So he doesn't see his business is just copy editing and already finished manuscript. He sees his business has seen an early draft, giving suggestions putting, you know, giving ideas, and then working with the author is the book becomes stronger and a better book. So that kind of expertise is very expensive, because each individual project takes a considerable amount of time. So if the press has that idea of itself that it really wants to work with authors to help them realize their ideas in the most finished in the most powerful form. There's no way you can do cost cutting on a process like that, it just is what it is. And that is the Chicago commitment. But even Alan Thomas is not sure how long into the future they can continue that kind of intensive work on books. I mentioned the x-ray pages well, it maybe took the designer an extra month to be able to produce those pages in my book so you that has a cost. If you take your top designer and now you can make your top designer for a month to do this project well it ups the cost of the book considerably. So, it is true that authors are taking on more of the, the minutiae of copy editing and so forth themselves. But when you work with a really talented designer, they frequently have ideas that won't occur to an author, just as an example in my book on thought. I think one of my favorite the designer at Chicago had the idea of taking some of the large capital letters in chapter headings and so forth, and making the font thin as it went down the page, which was an inspired idea that perfectly captured the spirit of the book. I would never have thought of that. And of course, that takes extra time as well. You can't do that with a template. It's a, you know, bespoke design. So, so I think yes, some of this can be pushed off of the authors not only in terms of time but in terms of money as the luminous project is doing. But good book designers and dedicated editor editors at major presses fulfill roles that I don't think authors can do, at least I can't do. I think that that issue about how much work the author is doing is reflected in one of the comments. I think Rachel saying about if there's an expectation that authors should do more either in terms of formatting the actual monograph or in terms of producing additional material. If that leads to disadvantage in those who perhaps have less time because of, you know, other commitments, heavy teaching laws, disabilities, etc. So, are we, you know, potentially creating a two tier system where the people who have time are able to produce these beautifully curated websites and the people who don't, you know, are losing out because they don't have that time and resource. That's true. And I mentioned the manifold project that University of Minnesota press and Doug Armato is quite a front and saying that if author agrees to have his or her book put in the manifold project, it is a huge investment of time for them to gather the materials for material. All that has to be curated and vetted, formatted in a way that make it make ties it in with the print book and so forth. So that's absolutely true and saying that you have the time amounts to saying that you come from a well resourced institution that you're not teaching at a community college or you may not even be teaching at a state college. So again, a major university that can allow those kinds of resources to be made available to you. I was thinking about some of the issues around business models as we're still on university presses and the California model when describing reaching a wider geographical audience reflect some of the open access presses that we have in the UK and some of their experiences. And I was struck as I think some others were by by the quote from Duke about about the failure. And that idea that university presses are seen as profit centers by their institutions, you know, and should be making money in a way that libraries aren't you know libraries aren't expected to make money libraries are a cost center for the institution but they seem to be providing a service. And I wonder if, you know, I do wonder if we have to rethink what a university press is for, and what it's what how we define success in terms of university persons. Yes, every single press I talked with was feeling exactly that kind of economic pressure, even those that come from very prestigious universities like Columbia or Chicago. They, they were playing a game of, you know, pain Peter from Paul sort of thing that they did have parts of the press that made money for example business publishing is frequently profitable journal publishing, especially in some fields is particularly profitable. So they were shuttling their profits from say business publishing over to the humanities and to the fields that rely on monographs, but everyone I spoke with felt that this was precarious, that it was not clear how much longer their institutions permit them to just break even. I mean they weren't even talking about going in the red many of these presses were breaking even. But if their institution was demanding that they make money for them, then that put in a whole additional pressure on, which is a different situation than avoiding going into debt you know if you're breaking even it looks like it's well that's okay but still the universities wanted to see increasingly the presses actually making money and contributing to the bottom line. And that that is really really hard for them. I think that perhaps some university leaderships have been have been seduced by one or two exceptionally large university presses who make significant services and feedback into the institutions. I'm thinking of two within the UK, who happen to be members of our UK, who have very successful university presses who are, you know, who contribute to the running of the university. But you know that is so exceptional, and it's hard to see how that's a model for for university presses at all. We're running out of time and we've got some, I do have some more questions, I, there's one very technical question from right from the beginning which I think you sort of answered, but when you're talking about the x-ray pages and the underlying code we specifically meaning to be unicode or we talking about code in a more generalized sense. Yeah, I was talking about code in a more generalized sense. Brilliant. I question here about whether authors have a different expectation of the longevity of their work, if they're going to print or digital do you think if someone produces. I think there are reasons that you know people are thinking well I'm going to produce a website or whatever, but I know it's only going to be there for 10 years whereas that I'm expecting the monograph, the print monograph to be in the shelves of the libraries for the next 500 years, or have we not got to that stage of thinking. Well this is already a quite distinct difference in how people think of their scholarly work. So the scholars who work primarily in print, they envision their books as the culmination of a project. You embark on a project you spend however many years on it you publish your book project finished, and you might make some connections with the next project, but generally speaking, the book is the bookmarks it's finished. The website, it's not entirely different model. It's not on the model of book book book. It's a continuing process of updating the software of expanding the website, trying to attract new users to it. It's a continuous flow, not a kind of nodal flow book book book, it's more website website continuing website still continuing. So it's, it's presents a different, the different vision of what it means to engage in scholarship. And there are a few scholars that do both of these models simultaneously. But I think, in general, one tends to specialize either in book production or in website production, and they result in really different career patterns. I think that sort of that, that, that twin track approaches is, is, as I think we've sort of highlighted, is a challenge to the library community as well. I mean, what in terms, in terms of what it means of preserving scholarship for the for the long term, and one that we need to need to tackle and I think you've given us some superb pointers.