could you expand a bit more on this? I'm a bit confused. First you're saying the conscious brain is killing your body and burnout is the body's attempt at trying to save itself. Then you seem to imply that it's an external toxin being consumed and you have to consciously identify it and stop consuming it?
Stress can have many causes, but at the root of it, stress is mediated by the brain. The brain tells the body to be on high alert, it does this by mediating hormonal responses.
Stress is good in certain situations: if you are being chased by a lion your body doesn't need to worry about hunger, your blood needs to go into your muscles, etc. These are typical signs of the stress response: loss of appetite, libido, tense muscles, loss of sleep. There are a group of molecules that are extremely important in putting your body in stress mode, these are cortisols.
Your brain is capable of putting your body in stress mode at any point, in fact, if you measure cortisol levels on people who are struggling with depression in most cases you see very elevated levels of this hormone. It's literally your brain telling your body they are in danger.
Now, if you are working so much you become stressed then your body will suffer and eventually your body will not be capable of dealing with being on "high alert" for so long that it will quite literally shut down. That is burn out, if your work is making you stressed then your work is becoming poison. If you stop drinking poison then your mind will go back to a normal functioning state and the stress will go down.
It's also useful to note that stress in the brain also in some cases increases neural activity which increases oxygen needs by the brain as well as electrolyte needs by the brain. The increase in oxygen usage increases strain on the heart and can indirectly cause heart disease/heart attack. The increased consumption of electrolytes if not carefully managed can cause strokes. Especially in that latter case, burnout that results in a stroke is a very literal burnout, the brain has electrically burnt too hot/bright and the resulting damage is very real and very scary.
Complexity in software is a lot like complexity in cuisine; most chefs want to stretch their abilities and create something memorable, transcendent even, but at the end of the day unless they’re cooking for themselves or friends and family there’s a business to be run.
So complexity has a diminishing return for economical reasons.
Things get interesting when we cross the inflection point of having an abundance of lift.
Once you can achieve X+Y lbs of indefinite lift, where X is the necessary weight and Y is the excess, then maintaining Y*C aloft indefinitely becomes simply a matter of scaling the number of crafts to contribute the requisite excess lift (aerodynamics aside for the time being).
What affect will indefinitely floating object, barges, buildings (living, restaurants, business), etc... have on society where fuel isn't a factor? (e.g., Facebook's global internet, cheaper flying transports, cars and eventually domiciles)
You're absolutely right, above a certain ratio of surface area to mass it becomes downright hard to keep a structure on the ground.
I'm experimenting with kites and the Magnus effect to eventually build exactly what you describe: infrastructure in the sky. (Note the absence of "cloud" puns, that is deliberate.) With computer control I see no reason why we couldn't have flying buildings.
My concern is that we will need to be able to fly to pass through the current mass extinction. I was looking at birds one day and realized that the dinosaurs that made it could fly. One way or another we are going to need to move lots of people and things rapidly over great distances.
I want to make swarms of cellular kite robots that can reconfigure themselves and combine to create vast lifting bodies.
----
Should mention Bucky Fuller's discovery: An aluminium geodesic sphere of one-half mile or greater diameter will float.
Sunlight reflecting internally from the metal heats the air which expands. Above the critical size the mass of the air displaced from the sphere by thermal expansion exceeds the mass of the aluminium shell. If you sealed the sphere (even if it leaked a bit) it would remain aloft overnight.
Bucky called them "Cloud Nine" and wanted to build cities in them.
Can someone ELI5 why Python is more like rendering HTML than executing JS? This is confusing to me since much of node.js/V8 is C, yet AFAIK (from the title and my experience) it's faster, and I don't recall anything intrinsically more declarative (i.e. HTML) when writing python compared to JS. They both feel very similar as scripting languages to me.
IOW, from my limited ignorant perspective, this feels more like the WHAT than the underlying differentiating WHY.
It's possible it's in there and I missed it.
EDIT: FWICT from the linked slides[1], it's the result of 2 issues: 1. Expensive dynamic language features and 2. python is like node.js, but as if you only called V8 bindings and so VM performance was irrelevant. This is strange to me; while I feel I can conceptualize the difference, I still don't know enough to understand why it is so compared with node.js.
The HTML comparison was referring to the python bytecode rather than the language. A more apt comparison would be CISC vs RISC processors, where the V8 IR is more like a RISC processor.
Not to get unnecessarily political, but there is almost certainly an analogy to be drawn here to American federalism and the state v. federal government interplay on behalf of their citizens.
Taking the analogy further, the App Store trend is analogous to the 17th amendment[1] superseding the states' right to appoint senators. The relevant implication being that tribal power inevitably gravitates toward centralization on behalf of the "user."
The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever:
"The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."
My recommendation is to just use songbird (which exposes the forthcoming promise API from core, built on bluebird), async/await and the async `trycatch` library so you don't have to worry about a 3rd party package's choice of asynchrony. It also comes with optional long stack traces.
in my experience, async/await is a great way to layer indirection and obfuscation over what is still callback hell. it may look better in the editor, but it's hell to debug.
When I initially encountered event -based processing (libevent in C), those callbacks were indeed difficult to wrap my mind around. But I learned to structure the code in the editor, keeping everything together which made it manageable.
I 've worked with node for a couple of months now, and I find promises to be more confusing, because it obfuscates the callback in my mind, and makes it look like ordinary function calls.
The advantage of promises is that you can return them as a type, you can't do that with a callback. If you fetch something from a database , your data access object can return a promise and let the client code deal with the result. Promises are composable by nature, callbacks are not.
async/await is tiny amount of sugar over generators and promises (virtually the only thing that changes is `yield` -> `await` and `function*` -> `async function`), not callbacks.
EDIT: Oops, I misread the parent. You're right, async/await isn't easy to debug, but it's getting better, and it's a tradeoff. For now, I recommend debugging the compiled code (using generators) without source maps to avoid some of the quirks of source maps. In my experience, the tradeoff is worth it for new node.js developers because it offloads the asynchrony contract (e.g., calling a callback OAOO) to the language.
The solution is not to rest and then resume consuming toxins but to eliminate the toxicity.
In order to do that, you must identify what is killing you.