There are limitations to DH, it is easy to get lost in piles on piles of data and potential for mistakes and creating of 'culture' that overlooks whats truly defines culture. DH is suseptible to exploitations and the propagation of myths. It is already difficult to differentiate between false and truthful sources online, DH is not immune to this effect.

It's important to note the popularization of Big Data being visualized across disciplines, all subjects are moving towards digital methods to generate understandings of past work and future movements. Art specifically is moving into a digital understanding with integrated design becoming digitized, paving a new way to think, AI has also become a new approach in digitizing humanities

In my opinion the best way to distinguish a place from a non-place is the level influence of place, how spatiality influences the circulation and consumption of a location. A place with a high influence of place, would be a dynamic active space ever-changing over time, almost an orginism-like.

I've found this to be true from personal experience, people tend to loyal to different platforms, however I disagree with using as it a metaphor for learning world literature. Comparing the physical transition from a keyboard to a controller to learning another language doesn't make sense, as coordination doesn't translate across platform tools, whereas language is very interconnected and learning French then learning Spanish is quite related and thus learning one would aid the learning of another. Learning to use a keyboard would hinder the progress of learning to use a controller. In both instances I have personal experience i'm fluent in french and spanish is very fimilar, im loyal to keyboard and mouse and find using a controller very difficult

I think this aligns with jobs becoming automated as we move into the future, although right now computational methods by themselves are insufficient it is only a matter of time before they become sophisticated. We rely so much on the computation of humanities to store and with human help, computers can arrive at sophisticated conclusions

Data management will continue to grow as an industry, distant-reading will be more and more automated by AI and algorithms. I think distant-reading will begin to overlap with math, as qualitative properties are turned into qualitative data.

Algorithms are becoming more and more sophisticated, with that said it is plausible to arrive at the conclusion that algorithms pose threat to historical interpretions. However, I think as we move into the future this potential for error will become more and more minute as our data management and data storage will improve as well as the standards governing data. It will likely become harder to find gaps in digital history.

There is a clear correlation between sophistication and price. The sophistication can be interpreted as the amount of data stored, mass amounts of data stored can quickly lead to complications without proper sorting, the video specified how important the proper management of data is, especially in a plethora of formats at different digital levels. Companies willing to tackle data analytics utilize a wide variety of digital tools to gain interpretations and find results to sell for profit.

interesting to see the involvement of scholars and technologists on a common goal. The divide between the humanities and science is so present in an academic environment, DH serves as a common ground. As we move into the future, it will become much more essential for academics no matter the field to have some sort of digital proficiency to share their works. This digital proficiency goes hand-in-hand with digital humanities and serves as a starting point for any uploaded academia.