{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","uuid":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","normalized_title":"thestackonsoftwareandsovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","isbns":["9780262029575"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":517,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Stack%20On%20Software%20and%20Sovereignty","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/search"},"page":{"printed_page":200,"pdf_page":216,"physical_index":216,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"8b00227c023c438a9b70e880f637df4b6aefc3f652d2c2f595570b0d229fc9a6"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"45. Objects in The Stack\n\nBefore we consider the terms for that kind of compositional exploration, let ’ s revisit the more familiar, visible, human-centric, utilitarian program for ubiquitous computation developed for an “ Internet of Things. ” One could be excused for assuming that the future of computing involves primarily the proliferation of calculation and networking into domestic appliances, so that rolling waves of suburban kitchens may be refashioned as smart spaces and interactive habitats. However, this forever stale vision predates general-use computing by many years, and Architecture has had better plans for information spaces for at least as long. For example, in the 1960s, the definition of architecture as a container and conveyer of information was central to Christopher Alexander ’ s project, while the reprogramming of Apollo-era cities as a lattice for interactive media technologies was sketched out by Cedric Price, Archigram, Reyner Banham, and others. Before MIT ’ s Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte founded Architecture Machine Group, which focused on the problems of human-computer interaction at the environmental scale and what came in time to be called “ information architecture. ” <sup>14</sup> Today, as suggested, many speculative information space design questions are not only coordinated around building automation but also for the conjuring of exotic materials such as smart dust, a generic name for different kinds of millimeter- to nanometer-scale sensor arrays with ultralow power budgets connected wirelessly and which gather hyperlocal data as they swerve. Some of these perhaps even also in turn react back on their microcosmos and our macrocosmos — what Vernor Vinge calls “ smart motes with effectors. ” <sup>15</sup>\n\n200\n\nAddress Layer","previous_page":199,"next_page":201}