I do think it's, i cind of had two minds about this section, because in some ways it does sound like this kind of end user programming. And at the same time, maybe just, you know, this is so early, and, you know, there's not a lot of imagination on what computers could look like, but so much of it seems more akin to, yes, and people are just going to have to learn how to programme, because it's worth while for them to take the time to learn this system to do the things and less of like and we need to make it able, right? It seems to me, you know, maybe this is my bias into this text, but it seems like he really wants a computer used to be more like programming, rather than programming to be more like everyday things, right? This, once you learn the non programmatic aspects of the system, you'll realize, oh, actually been learning things that are not that different from programming. I guess the way he, i might put it, that's,

that's interesting to think about, considering that this is right at the dawn of programming as we know it. And so thinking of it as he wants computer use to be just like programming. If you then, if you take that idea together with the idea that programming as its being developed in the early sixties is a reflection of the context in which it's being invented. So, you knows, it's funded by the military. Its in a business context. It's it's being done by engineers and mathematicians and logicians. It's very structured. Am it's, you know, like there's a reason that if wasa was a significant advancement, and that whole idea of structured programming, that's an advancement that came from people who want to be able to incode their thinking in a way that resembles formal systems of logic. So it might not be that what dug is thinking is that, you know, we want computer use to be like programming, and programming has these attributes to it. It might be that he wants computer use to be like this sort of idealized version of how you structure a large operation in a business or military context, where you have lots of processes and you have lots of procedures and you have lots of regimentation and order, and that it is very much about a group of people in corporation working together to some structural goal. And that it's sort of like that. I can't remem the name who coined this, but it's that idea that the the soft war that an organization builds is a reflection of the structure of that organization. And so it might be that the the way that he's thinking about all of this is less that it it resembles programming, but that programming and all of this just are a reflection of the kind of organization that he's in as he's coming up with this stuff. And that if he was in a different context, and this might go back to, like, ok, if we were going to get a different context here at the dawn of computing, we'd need like, something other than capitalism or whatever, like you could very quickly zoom out into, ok, what is it that enabled these structures to exist such that they would, you know, create a programming but it all has that feel of like, you know, not just precision for the sake of making it like a machine, no, like a computer, but that the machine, the computer, is a an organization that mirrored the human structures that birthed it. Yes.