application data interface
In computer programming, an application programming interface (API) is a set of subroutine definitions, protocols, and tools for building application software. … A good API makes it easier to develop a computer program by providing all the building blocks, which are then put together by the programmer.
In computer programming, an application programming interface (API) is a set of subroutine definitions, protocols, and tools for building application software. In general terms, it’s a set of clearly defined methods of communication between various software components. A good API makes it easier to develop a computer program by providing all the building blocks, which are then put together by the programmer. An API may be for a web-based system, operating system, database system, computer hardware, or software library. An API specification can take many forms, but often includes specifications for routines, data structures, object classes, variables, or remote calls. POSIX, Microsoft Windows API, the C++ Standard Template Library, and Java APIs are examples of different forms of APIs. Documentation for the API is usually provided to facilitate usage. The status of APIs in intellectual property law is controversial.
Just as a graphical user interface makes it easier for people to use programs, application programming interfaces make it easier for developers to use certain technologies in building applications. By abstracting the underlying implementation and only exposing objects or actions the developer needs, an API reduces the cognitive load on a programmer. While a graphical interface for an email client might provide a user with a button that performs all the steps for fetching and highlighting new emails, an API for file input/output might give the developer a function that copies a file from one location to another without requiring that the developer understand the file system operations occurring behind the scenes
adding page when adding Kin Lane page
hopefully .. to get rid of ..how to’s.. and/or even communications/discussions (as we now practice them).. because hlb purpose.. not to collect how to’s.. rather.. to placebo reconnect us … and to free us from thinking we have to write/translate/explain/train how to’s (hlb would leave this trail.. but less about making a trail.. that we may/may not ever use/need.. more about freeing us from spending our days focusing on making trails/how to’s.. freeing us from looking for them from others.. et al)
because things like this:
Jonathan Worth (@Jonathan_Worth) tweeted at 5:04 AM – 17 Feb 2017 :
Can someone please point me at an auto-blocker for all promoted tweets ? Takes ages doing it manually. (http://twitter.com/Jonathan_Worth/status/832561428393578500?s=17)
in all the colors of promotion ness.. we spend our days responding/defending the loudest/shiniest things..leaving us little/no time to be us
Jim Groom (@jimgroom) tweeted at 4:45 AM – 17 Feb 2017 :
Thanks @acroom for sharing OU Create docs, he even wrote HowTo so we can help other schools that need/want it: https://t.co/OZNxnK7oez (http://twitter.com/jimgroom/status/832556645599289344?s=17)
what if our creating of how to’s (like above) is keeping us from being.. meaning.. we keep putting eudaimoniative selves on hold.. because we don’t want to miss out on.. or we’re complianced.. or belittled.. or money-based .. into thinking we have to find the perfect how to .. in order to be..
Ian Welsh (@iwelsh) tweeted at 3:52 AM – 17 Feb 2017 :
So with Feldenkrais what you have is a genius who wasn’t able to properly pass on his method/way of thinking/principles. (http://twitter.com/iwelsh/status/832543344647602176?s=17)
Ian Welsh (@iwelsh) tweeted at 3:53 AM – 17 Feb 2017 :
People who can’t reason from principles can often do great work, but they don’t really understand how they do it, and they can’t explain it. (http://twitter.com/iwelsh/status/832543529947820033?s=17)
perhaps that’s good.. perhaps explaining getting in way of us
i mean.. perhaps we needed that before.. but today.. we can ie: hlb.. and not spend our days translating for others.. when they weren’t that interested in the first place.. today: our ability to facil the chaos of 7 bn daily idiosyncratic jargons to the rescue..
[so now thinking rotoscoping.. and Kin teaching the machine to remember what to do with certain images.. so.. the machine via hlb.. learns over time our idio jargons..again.. main purpose.. to connect us without judging us – ie: our daily curiosities.. because .. rule #1: anything is a go..]
A fish is not like a bicycle, but they’re not mutually exclusive. You can have both.
Part of our culture admires reason. It celebrates learning. It seeks out logic and coherence and an understanding of the how and the why.
At the same time, there are other people who seek out influence and authority. Either to exercise it or to blindly follow it.
Sometimes, they overlap. Sometimes, power is guided by reason. But that’s not required, not in the short run. And sometimes, reasonable, informed people wield power. But again, as a visit to a university’s English department will show, not always.
It’s tempting for the powerful to argue with those that admire reason, pointing out how much power they wield.
And it’s tempting for the well-informed to argue with those that have power, pointing out how little reason they possess.
But just as a fish isn’t going to stop you from riding a bicycle, these arguments rarely work, because power and reason don’t live on the same axis. Listening to someone argue from the other axis is a little like watching TV with the sound off. It might look normal, but it is hard to follow.
Before we engage, we need to agree on what’s being discussed.