Assuming you're not being snarky, hold on to your pants ...
As a baseline, you have Asm.js[1] + Web Workers[2] today in most browser places (actually, all places, if you creatively polyfill.) For newer-fangled browsers only, you have Web Assembly[3] + Web Workers, which takes in-browser performance to a whole 'nother level.
Now, the Web Assembly spec isn't stopping at replacing Asm.js. There's going to be support added for SIMD and vectors and whatever cool stuff newer processors can do. The big deal will be once Web Assembly gets the ability to do syscall-like thunks to DOM API and the other myriad JavaScript API. At that point, the browser's a full OS platform capable of hosting most applications. This new thing will then be able to go beyond any previous application platform in terms of reach and ultimately, capability.
Just forget about the term "browser" when the thunks appear. This will be a new "Platform 1.0" that will span all modern operating systems and devices. Node.JS will implement a compatible "Platform 1.0" subset for server-side platforming where client and server will be able to share binary libraries.
This is coming soon. If you've got some great idea for a next generation online app, it's time to start working hard and have it target "Platform 1.0"!
Browser need to come with a bytecode that would run into the local container on the local operating system running on the VM on another operating system running on top of real hardware, so we can finally have a true app platform.
My point is that we could ship bytecode long before browser were even invented, therefore I doubt that the explosion of complexity is caused by us trying to solve that problem.
This is easy to test: we just have to wait until we can ship byte code through the browser, and see how long it takes for another layer of abstraction missing some important feature to pop up on top of it.
The DOM wants to be accessed sequentially by a single thread, then we ended up to say single threading is good because we don't have alternatives and because we're using the same frontend technology for backend jobs (v8.) It's a kind of Stockholm syndrome.
Sequential access to the DOM can be ok because we are the only user of the browser. Single processing is not so ok on the backend because there could be thousands of users there. We scale Ruby, Python and Node with multiple processes (I'm doing it.) I'm also developing an Elixir application using Phoenix. The approach is similar to writing Rails or Django code (I never sent a single message in all the application) with the convenience of not having to manage sidekiq or celery for background jobs (they're in the language) and autoscaling.
I was in a similar situation, although I got more than 3 hours of sleep. I don't think 3 hours of sleep per day is sustainable, you have to find another solution. Any work you do on 3 hours of sleep is probably not great anyway.
I don't know your specific circumstances, but I used low dosage Armodafinil and Melatonin before with with success to get by with little sleep (didn't keep track, but I think at least 6 hours per day). If you are in the US you will need a prescription for Armodafinil, but if you explain your situtation to the doctor it is easy to get one. Armodafinil can be imported cheaply from India. Melatonin is over-the-counter.
Wish more emphasis was on this. The posture, back, legs, sight, digestion... these all deteriorate from extended sitting in front of the monitor and a bad diet.
How are you only getting 3 hours of sleep per day? Genuinely curious. Why does your visa matter so much you're willing to harm yourself in a possibly very serious way? I suggest you take a step back and seriously weigh your options.
Given the DPRK's secrecy, there's always tealeaf-reading involved in any interpretation of its behaviour. Many DPRK-watchers do suggest that the neocon drive to regime change in general, and the 2011 Libyan intervention in particular, cemented its determination to gain a credible nuclear deterrent.
If the US had a normal President, this might be rational enough. As things stand, we're a whisker away from a war which will incinerate millions, kill the world economy stone dead for decades, and prevent all progress on the many critical issues facing our dying planet.
You say a normal president would help, but a "normal president" was behind the shit in Libya that you said cemented NK's determination. No matter what kind of president America has, our reckless foreign intervention through the past few decades is to blame.
I didn't say a normal president would 'help', nor did I defend the US's MIC. I said nuclear deterrence as a rational response on the part of the DPRK depends on the assumption of a normal functioning President. Given the incumbent, the DPRK may have made a miscalculation that will end in ashes.
The president is a non-issue on strategic matters, he has no knowledge on this, he knows it and the people around him know it. If you watch him, you'll see him do the typical alpha-male thing solely for his crowd, then the generals will tap him on the shoulder, whisper something in his ear, and after that he will do and say what he's told. Happened for Syria, happened for Iraq, happened for Afghanistan, and it will be the same for NK.
We'd better hope so, but the clear first rule of thinking about the future is to give scant attention to anyone who expresses much confidence in their own prognostications. No-one knows what will happen, because the future is undetermined (read Tetlock amongst others: political predictions are difficult and generally of low accuracy).
Don't forget that the whole design of the US nuclear deterrent system is precisely to make their use not "strategic", but keep it rather within the tactical ambit of the POTUS (for an expert description see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/...). So if in a fit of pique Trump decided to 'teach Kim a lesson' (this is the level of sophistication at which he thinks), "the generals" may well tap him on the shoulder, but it will be entirely a matter of his whim whether or not he heeds that tap.
Your retreat into comforting certainty is quite understandable.
War with NK could break out any day or hour if we're unlucky. With Russia? Not impossible, particularly if someone badly stuffs up in Syria, but far less likely.
Sorry you are being downvoted. But what you write is the perspective of North Korea. And within some underlying assumptions it is perfectly relational.
Nrk is spending massive amounts on military but probably is losing to South Korea. Nuclear weapons offers nrk a way out of being outspent.
The west accepted Pakistan as a nuclear power; my guess is that we will accept nrk as well.
What Syria, Iraq and Libya all have in common -- dictators with brutal policies that naturally create a lot of domestic enemies. Did US try to influence those countries? definitely yes. Playing dirty? of course. But that's world politic for you.
Single out the US isn't helpful for the discussion. Do you think Russia, China, EU have all just stayed away from all of the conflicts? How about Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Turkey?
Ask South East Asia countries what they think of China; or ex-USSR states of Russia; or Sri Lanka of India.
North Korea has the support of China and holds South Korea ransom. They don't need nuclear weapon for self defense.
As much as I hate the NK regime I have to agree with this. If I were on the USA's shit list I'd be trying to become nuclear capable as quickly as possible to prevent "regime change".
How about you try not to enslave your population in the last communist totalitarian dictatorship in the world ? What course of action make you think treating your population like shit is wise ? It consumed the Stalinist USSR, what do you expect will happen when you keep pissing off the whole world ?
Exactly nothing, if you have the capacity to nuke the capital cities of the whole world.
To be clear: I think the Government of NK is monstrously evil, and I wouldn't shed a tear if their population rose up and lynched them.
But their behaviour in seeking nuclear weapons is rational, because history has shown that non-nuclear dictatorships with valuable resources get invaded.
You should use the right terminology. H-1B is a non-immigrant visa, though it allows the possibility of becoming an immigrant in the US.
A more accurate phrase is "guest workers", but given your context you probably meant to use the word "foreigners". Someone on the flip side might use the phrase "indentured servant".
In the larger debate, the criticisms are well known (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Criticisms_of_the_pro... ), and many seem both of substance and disconnected to xenophobia. For example, some opponents to the current H-1B process want the H-1B visa holder to be able to change jobs without losing their place in line for the green card, which would benefit the ex-pat worker whose options are otherwise "grin-and-bear-it" at a hated job or leave the US.
As such, it's likely that your prediction of bigotry based on the information you read, has a high enough error rate, and a strong likelihood of poisoning the discussion, that it's not worthwhile to state.
I am not an US citizen so it is hard to call me bigot with relation to US dual intent visas. But H1-B is used to fuck both the foreigners and the domestic US programmers.
Bottom line is people are looking for a better lifestyle, not just a cool tech job. So yes we will continue to come, and maybe even marry local ladies.
'ALL YOUR JOBS ARE BELONG TO US'
