Monday, October 2, 2023

If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week? | Tesla faces such fierce competition in China that it's offering a revamped Model Y with no price increase | Everyone Was Wrong About Antipsychotics | Americans used to eat pigeon all the time—and it could be making a comeback

View online | Unsubscribe (one-click).
For inquiries/unsubscribe issues, Contact Us














Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng
Learn more about Jeeng


If You're So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week? - Harvard Business Review   

In the old days, if you were a white-collar worker, the deal was that you worked as hard as you could at the start of your career to earn the right to be rewarded later on, with security of tenure and a series of increasingly senior positions. This is no longer true. Today, many senior leaders work longer and harder than ever. At the heart of it is insecurity, and indeed, elite professional organizations deliberately set out to identify and recruit “insecure overachievers.” Insecure overachievers are exceptionally capable and fiercely ambitious, yet are driven by a profound sense of their own inadequacy. If this sounds familiar, you should try to work exceptionally long hours when you need to or want to — but do it consciously, for specified time periods, and to achieve specific goals. Don’t let it become a habit because you have forgotten how to work or live any other way.

“I really became a robot,” a manager at an accounting firm explained. She and her colleagues worked extraordinarily long hours, but, she said, “I thought it was normal. It’s like brainwashing. You are in a kind of mental system where you are under increasing demands, and you say to yourself that it doesn’t matter, that you will rest afterwards, but that moment never comes.”

Through my research, I’ve heard stories like this over and over again from people in accounting firms, law firms, consulting firms, and other white-collar jobs. We all know that chronic overwork is bad for our mental and physical health and can seriously jeopardize the quality of our work. We wish we could change the way we work, but we don’t really know how.

Continued here



Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng
Learn more about Jeeng



Don't like ads? Go ad-free with TradeBriefs Premium



Want to accelerate software development at your company? See how we can help.



Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng
Learn more about Jeeng


Everyone Was Wrong About Antipsychotics - WIRED   

Antipsychotics come from a long line of accidents. In 1876, German chemists created a textile dye called methylene blue, which happened to also dye cells. It meandered into biology labs and, soon after, proved lethal against malaria parasites. Methylene blue became modern medicine’s first fully synthetic drug, lucking into gigs as an antiseptic and an antidote for carbon monoxide poisoning. Cue the spinoffs: A similar molecule, promethazine, became an antihistamine, sedative, and anesthetic. Other phenothiazines followed suit. Then, in 1952, came chlorpromazine.

After doctors sedated a manic patient for surgery, they noticed that chlorpromazine suppressed his mania. A series of clinical trials confirmed that the drug treated manic symptoms, as well as hallucinations and delusions common in psychoses like schizophrenia. The US Food and Drug Administration approved chlorpromazine in 1954. Forty different antipsychotics sprang up within 20 years. “They were discovered serendipitously,” says Jones Parker, a neuroscientist at Northwestern University. “So we don't know what they actually do to the brain.”

But Parker really wants to know. He has spent his career studying brains flooded with dopamine, the condition that underpins psychosis. And while he doesn’t pretend to fully understand antipsychotics either, he believes he’s got the right approach to the job: gazing directly into brains. With a combination of tiny lenses, microscopes, cameras, and fluorescent molecules, Parker’s lab can observe thousands of individual neurons in mice, in real time, as they experience different antipsychotic drugs. That’s now paying dividends. In results appearing in the August issue of Nature Neuroscience, Parker shows that an assumption about antipsychotics that’s almost as old as the drugs themselves is …. well, wrong.

Continued here



Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng
Learn more about Jeeng





Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng

Learn more about Jeeng
Learn more about Jeeng


You are receiving this mailer as a TradeBriefs subscriber.
We fight fake/biased news through human curation & independent editorials.
Your support of ads like these makes it possible. Alternatively, get TradeBriefs Premium (ad-free) for only $2/month
If you still wish to unsubscribe, you can unsubscribe from all our emails here
Our address is 309 Town Center 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059 - 433006120

No comments:

Post a Comment