Notice the space between the end of the parenthetical and the start of the thick arrow, this is at an intersection of content and form, where category and functional interplay demarcate processuation of the real:

(start)[Start]->(running)
(http/get)[rel="Continue"]->(running)
let start = (outcome) -> ({ rel: () -> ({ ...outcome }) })
({category})[{Function}]->(output)

So YUML and JavaScript more or less live in the same syntactonomic space of expression. Just write your JavaScript as YUML documents already!

DeLanda’s syntactonomy is of use here: Cause|(|FullMoon, ...|)| where ontological casting, cloning, copying, etc. take place:

[…] From the fact that these associations are taught as customary, however, students can infer the simple rule that a proposition like:
— Causes (Full Moon, Low Tide)
belongs to the category “sentence” and that it has to be expressed as:
— FullMoonCausesLowTide.
This rule can be expressed in a notation that a pushdown automaton would understand as:
— S/Causes (Full Moon, Low Tide) → FullMoonCausesLowTide
In which “ S / “ means “belongs to the sentence category” and the arrow means “must be expressed as.”
(DeLanda, Manuel. Philosophy and Simulation.)

See sentence-subjects in Against Facts (Betti, Arianna) regarding dissolving the Unity Problem.

This observation is made in light of Eric Elliott’s note that arrow functions will fail to return an object literal (objet littéral a much?????) unless disambiguated with this thankless symparenthetic gesture.

And so on.

Components in(fra)structure of the one?

[infrastructure interstructuring intensifies]
▾ src/
▾ app/
▸ token/
▸ user/
▾ domain/
▸ token/
▸ user/
helper.js
▾ infra/
▸ containers/
▸ databases/
▸ encryption/
▸ logging/
▸ repositories/
▸ support/
▸ vendor/
▾ interfaces/http/
▸ actions/
▸ logs/
▸ middleware/
▸ modules/
▸ resources/
▸ routers/
▸ servers/
▸ services/
▸ transitions/
▸ utils/

Segmented discourse representation responsibility follows in the periodic table of being information:

Try these:

Take YUML in as Yeoman generators which generate diagram, code platter (whatever dumbass framework, or web component), pre-configuration-code-for-style-given-in-the-last-instance (device-media capability horizon; go read Laruelle if you’re not ((just)) wondering why this hyphenation shit keeps spurring up), Docker decks (if you start a markdown presentation2slidy/etc using pandoc where’s the boundary with it becoming a Docker file for deploying tedtalk2docker?), etc.; so a class will produce whatever class Thing in Node.js to be used as a treat: voila, you also have a visual diagram that expresses modes of architecture and interrelationship/intercommunication.

Set a “filter” to a conversation: now certain words will more likely register as “web app” versus “kitchen recipe.” This was our modality.

When meanings come down to sentences, we have a context alternative assembly that arises from expressive tendency and capacity, which founds an inferential space constituted from our attitudinal and functional ultimacy. We may take these indications, imperatives, claims, explications, continuations, gestures, and so on, into the meta-elaborations of creative intelligence (its processive, adjustive, formative intelligence too…), the languaging of things: a means of predicting the outside-text, such that we may speak systematic tasks toward an empty metaphysics of literature, nonhuman living, programmable hyperobject-ive possibility spaces. Under this mode, through this filter, we know that we know your message desires to be coded in such and such a way, so let’s map design patterns to our folk technologizing application psychogramming intferfaces! Generate the future’s API!

The modes of the copula carry the structure of lyric which enshrouds truth as appearance: the structure of the gesture which features truth, yet is constrained by the modal forces of synechdochic, ironic, metaphoric and metonymic structure. Our gradients of status, solidarity and the rest are accompanied by these modes of ossification and fragmentation [wip] …

In a word, we arrive not merely at the end of history, but the end of interpretation: transcendental empiricism. The axioms of any effectively formal system can be said not only axiomatize the modes of quatificational logics, but axiologize the conditions through which metaphors, metonyms, and a host of other mereological complexes are generated.

For mereological complexes, a given assemblage of heterogeneous constituents …

Note: Non-conformant APIs may be punished for punishing the unpunishable.

nobody leaves the cave before the end of a new dawn https://hypermedia-orientation.surge.sh