I run a AI workshop from home that is fully powered by solar + lithium batteries; custom components used to build it were also printed also using solar power; the stack is controlled&monitored by a bunch of raspberries. The whole thing paid for itself by mining crypto over 6 months. Now it is "free" and being used to do more interesting things. I live in a village of 200 people. #realist
De-lurking here after a few years of not-even-mediocre waldenponding…
I really like what you’ve laid out here and will, too, be spending more time with the REALIST stack. In a way, it covers the theory, and a bit of the theology, that explains my present discontent with working as a software engineer.
The second-to-last paragraph, esp., resonates deeply as a guiding principle. There are passages from McCullough’s book on the Wright Bros. that are pure Contraptioneering/REALIST gems…
Exhibit A: tests for their second glider at Kitty Hawk went worse than the first one. They decided to throw all existing knowledge out the window, and built a wind tunnel above their bike shop to run their own experiments. It’s likely that, had they not done this, they would’ve remained bike mechanics. McCullough described them as “scientific explorers”.
Here’s the link to the book, in case anyone’s interested:
Interesting perspective indeed, I can relate to it. The "IoT" layer hits me as a bit of an oddball in terms of naming though: I see the ubiquitous tjisivity *and* computational power of "things at the edge" it references to. But in order to have "IoT", you need a set of already quite complex hardware and software (including connectivity "middleware"), ending up with kind of a recursive definition problem if someone sticks more to the technologies itself than what the label effectively and specifically represents in the stack. But I see of course that “I” was the better choice than something like “C2” for “connectivity & computing” for a catchy acronym.
BTW, it is of course completely unrelated but: did it occur to you that the number of seven layers of your model looks like a perfect fit for Miller's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two). Was just wondering how many other stack models we regularly use also have seven layers, and if there is a tendency towards 7 +/-2 for such stacks (You mentioned OSI already).
I run a AI workshop from home that is fully powered by solar + lithium batteries; custom components used to build it were also printed also using solar power; the stack is controlled&monitored by a bunch of raspberries. The whole thing paid for itself by mining crypto over 6 months. Now it is "free" and being used to do more interesting things. I live in a village of 200 people. #realist
hehe, this sounds like a mix of an art project and a sci-fi story
De-lurking here after a few years of not-even-mediocre waldenponding…
I really like what you’ve laid out here and will, too, be spending more time with the REALIST stack. In a way, it covers the theory, and a bit of the theology, that explains my present discontent with working as a software engineer.
The second-to-last paragraph, esp., resonates deeply as a guiding principle. There are passages from McCullough’s book on the Wright Bros. that are pure Contraptioneering/REALIST gems…
Exhibit A: tests for their second glider at Kitty Hawk went worse than the first one. They decided to throw all existing knowledge out the window, and built a wind tunnel above their bike shop to run their own experiments. It’s likely that, had they not done this, they would’ve remained bike mechanics. McCullough described them as “scientific explorers”.
Here’s the link to the book, in case anyone’s interested:
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-wright-brothers-david-mccullough/10347963
Interesting perspective indeed, I can relate to it. The "IoT" layer hits me as a bit of an oddball in terms of naming though: I see the ubiquitous tjisivity *and* computational power of "things at the edge" it references to. But in order to have "IoT", you need a set of already quite complex hardware and software (including connectivity "middleware"), ending up with kind of a recursive definition problem if someone sticks more to the technologies itself than what the label effectively and specifically represents in the stack. But I see of course that “I” was the better choice than something like “C2” for “connectivity & computing” for a catchy acronym.
BTW, it is of course completely unrelated but: did it occur to you that the number of seven layers of your model looks like a perfect fit for Miller's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two). Was just wondering how many other stack models we regularly use also have seven layers, and if there is a tendency towards 7 +/-2 for such stacks (You mentioned OSI already).
tjisivity = connectivity. My fancy AI powered multi-lingual keyboard on iOS failed me miserably with that one. 🧐😊
Reading from Zeeland - this is my new favourite word 😎
This is blowing my mind. Thanks for sharing this model.