The Paradox of Freedom: you can only be free if you follow rules. Decentralization means making our own choices. Unless we agree on some basic things, no one will see the result of our choices. Agreement can be layered: 100% agrees on a small set (labeling, authorship, …) 80% agrees on a larger set (places, dimensions) 5% agrees on many smaller sets (sizes, colors, …)

“Perhaps there is a rule of thumb here? If you decentralize, the system will recentralize, but one layer up. Something new will be enabled by decentralization. That sounds like evolution through layering, like upward-spiraling complexity. That sounds like progress to me.”

Business logic in theory occupies the middle tier of a 3-tier architecture.

Music theorists have long been aware that different levels of beat are often simultaneously available to the listener. Harald Krebs (1999) uses the term “metrical layers” to describe this phenomenon. In the normal case, metrical layers nest neatly insideone another; they are metrically consonant with each other. This occurs, for example, in Pachelbel’s Canonas the prevailing note-values are repeatedly halved. Figure 3.1 shows this nesting relationship between layers. There is no need for a separate micropulse layer because the layers are metrically consonant: both eighth notes and quarter notes can be expressed as groupings of sixteenth notes.

Prefer alias when aliasing methods in lexical class scope as the resolution of self in this context is also lexical, and it communicates clearly to the user that the indirection of your alias will not be altered at runtime or by any subclass unless made explicit.

The WebSocket Protocol is designed on the principle that there should be minimal framing (the only framing that exists is to make the protocol frame-based instead of stream-based and to support a distinction between Unicode text and binary frames). It is expected that metadata would be layered on top of WebSocket by the application Fette & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 6455 The WebSocket Protocol December 2011 layer, in the same way that metadata is layered on top of TCP by the application layer (e.g., HTTP). Conceptually, WebSocket is really just a layer on top of TCP that does the following: o adds a web origin-based security model for browsers o adds an addressing and protocol naming mechanism to support multiple services on one port and multiple host names on one IP address o layers a framing mechanism on top of TCP to get back to the IP packet mechanism that TCP is built on, but without length limits o includes an additional closing handshake in-band that is designed to work in the presence of proxies and other intermediaries Other than that, WebSocket adds nothing. Basically it is intended to be as close to just exposing raw TCP to script as possible given the constraints of the Web. It's also designed in such a way that its servers can share a port with HTTP servers, by having its handshake be a valid HTTP Upgrade request. One could conceptually use other protocols to establish client-server messaging, but the intent of WebSockets is to provide a relatively simple protocol that can coexist with HTTP and deployed HTTP infrastructure (such as proxies) and that is as close to TCP as is safe for use with such infrastructure given security considerations, with targeted additions to simplify usage and keep simple things simple (such as the addition of message semantics).

A class adds a layer of abstraction, which makes the component API and its inner workings less clear.

Screen and Tmux are used to add a session context to a pseudoterminal, making for a much more robust and versatile solution. For example, each provides terminal persistence, allowing a user to disconnect from one computer and then connect later from another computer.

Trailblazer is no "complex web of objects and indirection". It solves many problems that have been around for years with a cleanly layered architecture.

but the design pattern is so simple that it takes hardly any effort to implement it on any existing reducer, so I rejected abstraction for abstraction's sake.

Transparent debugging: a <div> is just a div.

The vision is to provide ‘a conversation layer over the entire web that works everywhere, without needing implementation by any underlying site’.

Layers If a simple image can be compared to a single sheet of paper, an image with layers is likened to a sheaf of transparent papers stacked one on top of the other. You can draw on each paper, but still see the content of the other sheets through the transparent areas. You can also move one sheet in relation to the others. Sophisticated GIMP users often deal with images containing many layers, even dozens of them. Layers need not be opaque, and they need not cover the entire extent of an image, so when you look at an image's display, you may see more than just the top layer: you may see elements of many layers.

there the advocate cannot prejudge the case lest he threaten both jus-tice and his own livelihood.

Bearing in mind the conceptual difficulties and limitations of the level approach, we can see that an understanding through levels achieves a number of things. It emphasises the complexity of time and imposes order on the multiple expressions. It prevents us from focusing on one or two aspects of time at the expense of others. In addition to the more obviously social components, it establishes the centrality of the physical, living, technological, and artefactual aspects of social time. It stresses and affirms connections and relationships. It brings to the surface both the continuities and the irreducible aspects of social time. It helps us to avoid confusing the time aspects of our social life with those of nature

To Mead the past is irrevocable to the extent that events cannot be undone, thoughts not unthought, and knowledge not unknown. In this irrever-sible form, he contends, the past is unknowable since the intervening knowledge continuously changes the meaning of that past and relentlessly recreates and reformulates it into a new and different past. He argues this on the basis of the proposition that only emergence in the present has reality status. He does not accord the past and future such a status because they are real only with respect to their relation to the present. In Mead's thought the past changes with respect to our experiencing it in the present and the meaning we give to it. In contradistinction to the past, he conceptualises the reality of the present as changing with each emergence.

Not the number of levels or their content are at issue here since these might be varied according to the degree of the analysis' generality but their static developmental stages where the level 'below' is denied aspects that characterise the level 'above'. In other words, whilst theories of time levels are theoretically of interest and echoed in many subsequent social science conceptualisations -including those of Sorokin ( 1964) and Elias (1982a, b, 1984), for example -they deny to non-human nature what we have found to be central: the importance of past, present, and future extension; of history, creativity, temporality, time experience, and time norms. If time differ-ences are conceptualised with reference to stable, integrative levels then this prevents any understanding in terms of resonance and feedback loops. With discrete, unidirectional levels, consciousness cannot be shown to resonate throughout all of nature; and what we think of as 'human time' stays falsely imprisoned at that level.

Despite these important advantages, however, there are difficulties associated with the conceptualisation of social time in terms of levels. These relate to our tendency to reify the levels, to conceptualise them hierarchically, and to postulate clear cut-off points between them. The three, as we shall see, are closely interconnected.

A conceptualisation in terms of levels seems therefore well suited to explain and theorise the multitude of times entailed in contemporary life. To think of these times as expressions of different levels of our being avoids the need to discuss one aspect at the expense of all others. It means that we do not need to chose on an either/ or basis. It encourages us to see connections and not to lose sight of the multiplicity while we concentrate on any one of those multiple expressions.

This semester I am also interested in public writing. Of course, all writing in some way is public. If there’s an audience of one (your instructor), you’re writing for an audience. What happens though when your audience is larger and perhaps more anonymous? I will ask that much of your written responses be made public. This can mean tweeting your response to an article, posting a book review on a website like Amazon.com, but it will more generally mean posting on our course blog. We will talk about the layers of self-consciousness and critical engagement that come from writing in a public digital space like an online forum throughout the semester.

University of Oklahoma

In this way a perceptron in the second layer can make a decision at a more complex and more abstract level than perceptrons in the first layer

on top of the Web