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
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
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).
This is blowing my mind. Thanks for sharing this model.