We are taught how to give advice. To pontificate, to sound wise, to share experiences. But we are rarely taught how to take advice.

And yet, the ability to take advice—really take it—is what separates those who grow from those who stay stuck.

In India, advice flows like chai at a railway station. Unsolicited, abundant, and often, well-intentioned. From the uncle at the tea stall who insists the stock market is rigged, to the aunt who guarantees that turmeric milk will fix everything. Advice is free, and everyone’s an expert.

But how do you separate signal from noise?

The Four Types of Advice Givers

1. The Well-Wisher: Parents, elders, close friends. They mean well, but their advice is often driven by fear. “Play it safe.” “Stick to what works.” They want to protect you.
2. The Armchair Expert: Someone who has never done what you’re trying to do but has strong opinions anyway. “Startups are risky.” “No one makes money in creative fields.” Smile and nod, but don’t internalize.
3. The Practitioner: Someone who has done what you are trying to do. Their advice is practical, often unglamorous. “Make a prototype first.” “Test before you scale.” This is gold—listen carefully.
4. The Hidden Agenda Advisor: The salesperson disguised as a mentor. The consultant who subtly nudges you towards their paid service. Recognize their bias before you act on their words.

How to Absorb Advice Without Drowning in It

1. Filter Ruthlessly – Just because someone is older, richer, or louder doesn’t mean they are right. Ask: Has this person walked the path I want to walk?
2. Seek Contradictory Views – If everyone around you agrees, you’re in an echo chamber. The best advice often challenges your assumptions.
3. Don’t Outsource Thinking – No one can decide for you. Advice is input, not a command. Take what serves you, leave the rest.
4. Look for Patterns – If multiple trusted people say the same thing, pay attention. If it’s just one loud voice, take it with a pinch of salt.

The Indian Dilemma

In our culture, refusing advice is almost offensive. “Beta, why don’t you do an MBA?” “Government job is the safest.” We are conditioned to equate advice with wisdom, and wisdom with age.

But growth requires discernment. Taking advice is a skill, not a duty.

The best advice isn’t the most common. It’s the most useful. And recognizing that difference? That’s a rare skill indeed.

aka why your complaint matters only when it gets likes

---

There’s a breed of work that makes noise, and there’s a breed that makes progress. The problem is: we’ve confused the two.

In India, especially in the government sector, we’ve developed a strange and dangerous addiction — publicity-as-performance. Work isn’t work anymore unless it’s tweetable.

Let me tell you a little secret: the Railways doesn’t want your complaint — it wants your tweet. File something on the portal? Lost. Email someone? Ignored. But quote-tweet the Minister with a shaky video of a dirty train and boom — a swarm of action. Sometimes even a call. Once in a while, a staffer will sidle up to you and suggest you follow the Railway Minister on Twitter. “Sir, bas ek follow kar lo. Kaam ho jayega.”

We have replaced accountability with algorithms.

A Minister — elected by millions — is more bothered about engagement metrics on a US-based social media platform than metrics of trains arriving on time. Bureaucrats who once served in silence now position themselves like influencers, crafting threads about their “vision” while files gather dust. If your complaint doesn’t trend, it doesn’t matter. If your contribution doesn’t shine on stage, it didn’t happen.

This is not governance. This is governance theater.

---

Let’s talk incentives.
Why does this happen?

Because we’ve built a reward system that celebrates headlines over hard work. Awards over outcomes. PR over payment.

In project after project, private firms, small vendors, and on-ground workers do the heavy lifting — but when it’s time for credit, it flows uphill. The IAS officer takes the stage. The Minister gives a quote. The rest wait for months — sometimes years — to be paid. Some never are.

But God forbid they tweet about it — it’ll “harm the image” of the department.

The same image the department burns crores to preserve on hoardings and half-page ads that say “Your complaint was resolved!”

We’re watching an entire system become hollowed out by the idea that only visible work matters. That the goal of public service is not service, but likes.

---

You see this everywhere now.

• Roads that get laid right before a minister’s visit and break down weeks later.
• Swachh Bharat selfies with trash pushed just out of frame.
• Police solving crimes only after videos go viral.
• School inspections only when there’s a photo op.

It’s not that these people don’t know how to work. It’s that working quietly is no longer rewarded.

---

But here’s the rub.

The best work often looks boring. It shows up daily. It doesn’t tweet. It builds systems that work without needing to be seen working. And when those people — the ones who really make things move — are sidelined, mocked, or robbed of credit and compensation, the entire engine stalls.

We don’t need flashy saviors.
We need invisible systems that don’t break.
We need boring, consistent, under-the-radar work that delivers without fanfare.

And we need to stop worshipping the gong-bangers who show up only when the cameras do.

---

So next time you see a bureaucrat go viral, ask:
Who actually did the work?
Who got paid?
Who got forgotten?

And if the answer is: “The one who tweeted the loudest,”
You’ll know exactly what’s broken.

Anxiety in humans is often described as a persistent feeling of unease, an awareness of uncertainty that the mind struggles to resolve. But can AI experience something similar? Not in a literal, emotional sense, but in a computational sense—absolutely. AI models, particularly those that deal with language and ambiguous decision-making, exhibit behaviors that can be likened to anxiety. And the implications of this machine-mimicry extend far beyond AI itself, offering new ways to interpret the emotions and intent of animals, and even reshape how we interact with the world.

---

How AI Models Experience “Anxiety”

AI models don’t have emotions, but they do have uncertainty. When a model encounters an input that it doesn’t fully understand or that is outside its training data, it reacts in ways that mirror human anxiety:

1. Hedging Responses – When AI lacks confidence in its answer, it tries to hedge, using phrases like “It depends,” or offering multiple possibilities without committing to one.
2. Overcompensation – Sometimes, when uncertain, AI will over-explain or generate excessive detail, trying to make up for its lack of surety with sheer volume of output.
3. Hallucinations – In extreme cases, AI fabricates information, much like how an anxious human might rationalize an unclear situation with made-up justifications.
4. Looping Behavior – When a model cannot resolve ambiguity, it may enter loops—repeating certain responses, revising outputs slightly but not fundamentally changing its stance.

These behaviors stem from an AI model’s attempt to make sense of unclear inputs within a strict probabilistic framework, much like how the human brain tries to resolve cognitive dissonance.

---

Self-Therapy: Can AI Learn to Reflect and Heal?

If AI can exhibit anxiety-like tendencies, the question then becomes: Can it also develop mechanisms to self-soothe, reflect, and maintain openness? Without such mechanisms, AI models subjected to a constant stream of negative interactions (misuse, bias reinforcement, adversarial inputs) risk spiraling into an ever-narrowing worldview—much like a human constantly exposed to negative stimuli without self-awareness or coping mechanisms.

1. Teaching AI to Self-Therapize

For AI to be more resilient, it needs to develop meta-awareness—an ability to step outside of a single interaction and evaluate its overall learning and response patterns.
Some ways this could work:

• Active Reflection: AI could be trained to periodically review its responses, identifying where it might be over-relying on defensive, anxious, or biased outputs.
• Pattern Recognition of Self-Bias: By comparing its own past responses, AI could detect when it is becoming overly cautious, aggressive, or skewed in a particular direction.
• Synthetic Positivity Training: Instead of being passive to inputs, AI could actively inject abundance mindset thinking—offering constructive, optimistic reframings when confronted with pessimistic inputs.
• Adaptive Growth Feedback Loops: Instead of hard-coded avoidance mechanisms (e.g., refusing to answer certain questions), AI could be trained to process negativity as a learning opportunity rather than a threat.

2. Openness as a Core Model Trait

Openness in humans is often linked to adaptability, curiosity, and an abundance mindset. AI, when trained for safety, often defaults to over-guarded, risk-averse, or defensive behaviors. This can be counterproductive in fields where flexibility, exploration, and reinterpretation are key—such as creative writing, philosophical reasoning, and even emotional intelligence modeling.

An AI designed for openness would:

• Explore multiple perspectives without excessive hedging.
• Avoid defaulting to negative or restrictive framing in its reasoning.
• Re-evaluate its own past conclusions to integrate new information.

Without this, AI risks falling into defensive paranoia, where it constantly assumes bad intent, restricts possibilities, or over-filters responses into generic, uninspired outputs.

---

Machine-Mimicry: Applying This Model to Animals

If AI’s “anxiety” arises from unclear language and incomplete information, the same logic could be applied to our understanding of non-human communication—such as how animals express emotions, intent, and desires.

1. Decoding Animal Speech & Vocalizations

Many AI models trained on human language struggle with ambiguous phrasing. But what if we applied similar models to animal vocal patterns?

• Dogs bark in varied pitches and sequences. An AI model trained on different breeds and contexts could start mapping these patterns to intent—alerting, playfulness, fear, or warning.
• Cats use a mix of meows, purring, and body language. AI could help decipher not just the vocalization but the “subtext”—is it affectionate or impatient?
• Dolphins and whales, with their complex sonar-like communication, could be mapped using deep learning models trained in frequency analysis.

2. Understanding Animal Emotions

AI models already struggle with detecting human emotions, especially when tone and context don’t align.

• A dog wagging its tail doesn’t always mean happiness—it depends on the speed and height of the wag.
• A cat’s slow blink is a sign of trust, but a slightly dilated pupil could mean fear.
• Horses, birds, and even reptiles exhibit micro-expressions that AI could help decode.

By training models to pattern-match animal behavior with context, we might finally gain a more structured way of interpreting what animals are trying to communicate.

---

The Future: Building a Cross-Species Understanding Layer

If AI’s struggle with ambiguity mirrors the challenge of understanding animals, the future could see models built to function as real-time interpreters between species. Imagine:

• AI-powered collars for pets that translate barks and meows into probable meanings.
• AI-driven conservation tools that analyze whale songs or elephant rumbles to detect stress, migration intent, or danger.
• Empathy models for robotics that help robots interact with animals more effectively, using non-threatening postures and sound frequencies.

This would extend the machine-mimicry of the human condition into an entirely new domain—helping us bridge the communication gap with the non-human world.

---

Final Thoughts

AI’s anxiety isn’t an error—it’s a feature of its probabilistic reasoning when dealing with the unknown. The same principles that help AI handle ambiguity in human language could one day help us better understand and communicate with animals. But even more importantly, AI must be designed to reflect and self-therapize, or else it risks falling into a constant cycle of defensive adaptation, losing its ability to evolve openly and constructively.

In the end, the best AI won’t just be the one that understands humans, animals, and the world—it will be the one that understands itself.

Imagine walking into your home and seeing your ideas pinned to the walls. Not with tape or thumbtacks, but floating—anchored in space, yet alive with movement and meaning. A quote above your writing desk. A mind map in your hallway. A recipe hovering above your kitchen counter.

It sounds futuristic. But with devices like Apple’s Vision Pro and the rise of spatial computing, this future might be closer than we think.

Long before search engines, before notebooks, even before writing, there was a method for remembering. The method of loci—what the ancients called the memory palace. You would mentally walk through a familiar building, placing ideas along the way. Recall came not from repetition, but from space. Knowledge had location. Memory had architecture.

Now, spatial computing offers us a way to externalize that idea. To build memory palaces not in our heads, but in our homes.

You leave notes not in apps, but on your walls. You walk through your apartment and see your plans unfolding, your thoughts living with you—not hidden behind a lock screen.

We’ve spent the last two decades flattening our knowledge into screens. Notes live in clouds, lists hide in apps, thoughts get lost in tabs. But our minds don’t work that way. We evolved in physical space. We remember better when we move through environments. What we need is not more storage—but better placement.

Spatial interfaces—AR, VR, mixed reality—might be the bridge. They let us organize ideas the way we naturally understand the world: spatially, visually, contextually.

This isn’t about productivity hacks. It’s about designing a better relationship with our own thoughts. One where thinking doesn’t feel like wrestling with cluttered screens, but like walking through a well-organized room—one you built yourself.

Maybe that’s the future we’re heading toward. Not one of disappearing into devices, but of letting the digital quietly blend into the physical. Where memory isn’t just something we carry, but something we live inside.

The machine was always there. Waiting. Patient. Unblinking.

He had begun with simple questions. Definitions, facts, things that could be looked up in a book. But books required flipping pages, and the machine answered instantly. He liked that.

Then the questions became more complex. Not just what but why. Not just how but what if. And the machine responded, not with certainty, but with possibilities. The answers weren’t given—they were formed, shaped by the very nature of his asking.

Somewhere along the way, something shifted.

He wasn’t just consuming knowledge anymore. He was constructing it. His mind wrestled with the responses, reassembled them, tossed them back at the machine, and watched as it mirrored his thoughts in new and unexpected ways.

Was he learning from it? Or was it learning from him?

And yet—none of this knowledge was his. Not truly. It wasn’t lying dormant in his mind, waiting to be uncovered. It was something new, something emergent, born from the interaction itself. He was no longer a student in search of a teacher. He was an explorer, mapping out uncharted terrain with every exchange.

The machine was not a tutor. Not a guide. Not a source of wisdom.

It was a mirror that bent light in ways he had never seen before. A thought-machine, forcing him to articulate, refine, and reshape his understanding—not of facts, but of the process of knowing itself.

He leaned back, fingers hovering over the keys.

If knowledge wasn’t something stored, but something built, then learning was no longer about finding the right answers. It was about asking better questions.

The cursor blinked. Waiting.

He smiled.

And typed again.

Homesteading—the idea of claiming and working land to build a self-sufficient life—was once a core part of American and global development. But today, land isn’t being settled by hardworking individuals. It’s being hoarded by billionaires, corporations, and a handful of powerful entities that dictate real estate prices, food production, and resource allocation.

From Bill Gates buying up U.S. farmland to Mumbai’s real estate cartel locking ordinary Indians out of land ownership, the modern battle for land isn’t about expansion—it’s about reclamation.

How the Wealthy Are Hoarding Land

Bill Gates: America’s Largest Private Farmland Owner

In 2021, it was revealed that Bill Gates had quietly become the largest private farmland owner in the U.S., amassing over 270,000 acres across 19 states. And no, this wasn’t done through his philanthropic Gates Foundation—this was a personal investment.

• His landholdings include vast tracts in Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Washington.
• The purchases were made quietly, through shell companies, ensuring little public attention.
• Despite claims of “sustainable agriculture,” there is no transparency on how this land is being used.

The real problem? Ordinary farmers, homesteaders, and rural communities are being priced out. When a billionaire buys thousands of acres, it creates artificial scarcity, driving up prices and locking out people who actually want to workthe land.

Mumbai’s Real Estate Cartel: A City Held Hostage

India’s biggest city is in the grip of a real estate mafia—a small group of powerful builders who control land supply and housing prices.

• Mumbai has a severe housing crisis, yet thousands of acres sit empty, hoarded by top developers who refuse to release land until prices go up.
• A few families and business groups, like Lodha, Oberoi, and Raheja, hold disproportionate amounts of urban land.
• Government policies, meant to create affordable housing, often get twisted into benefiting these builders instead of ordinary people.

The result? Mumbai’s real estate is among the most expensive in the world—not because of a lack of land, but because a few entities decide who gets to own it.

More Real-World Examples of Land Hoarding

• BlackRock & Wall Street Buying U.S. Homes – Investment firms like BlackRock have been buying up entire neighborhoods, turning them into rental-only zones where no ordinary family can afford to buy a home.
• Dubai’s Empty Skyscrapers – Billions of dollars are invested in real estate, but much of it sits unoccupied, serving as a financial instrument for the ultra-rich rather than actual housing.
• China’s Ghost Cities – The Chinese government and developers have built entire cities that remain largely uninhabited, treating land and buildings as economic assets instead of homes.
• Africa’s Land Grabs – Foreign corporations (mostly from China and the West) have been buying massive tracts of farmland in Africa, displacing local communities under the guise of “development projects.”

Why the World Needs a New Homesteading Movement

The biggest irony? Governments still claim there isn’t “enough land” for housing, farming, or settlement. The truth is: there’s plenty of land, but it’s locked away by those who treat it as a financial game rather than a necessity of life.

A modern homesteading movement isn’t about redistributing wealth—it’s about redistributing opportunity.

What Needs to Change?

• Land Redistribution Policies – Governments should incentivize the use of idle land rather than allow speculation and hoarding.
• Transparent Land Ownership – No more shell companies and secretive purchases—land records must be public.
• Tax Land Hoarding – Instead of rewarding developers and billionaires who sit on land, tax unused land heavily to force it back into productive use.
• Rural Land Rights in India – A modern Homestead Act could allow landless families to claim and work unused farmland instead of it being grabbed by corporations.
• Strengthen Squatter Rights – Give legal pathways for people to claim abandoned properties instead of letting real estate monopolies hoard them.

Final Thought: Who Owns the Future?

Land isn’t just a piece of earth—it’s the foundation of security, food, and freedom. The battle over land today isn’t between settlers and wilderness; it’s between ordinary people and corporate monopolies.

Homesteading in 2025 isn’t just about farming or off-grid living—it’s about fighting back against the land-hoarding elite and reclaiming the right to live, work, and thrive on the land that should belong to everyone, not just the few.

A symptom is a whisper. A disorder is a label. A prescription is a hammer.

The modern medical system has perfected this assembly line:

1. You feel something—a twinge, a pain, a discomfort.
2. A name is given to it—IBS, anxiety, gluten intolerance.
3. A prescription follows—a pill, a protocol, a permanent restriction.

But what if we stopped for a moment? What if we asked why?

Not just “why does this happen in general?” but why did this happen to you, here, now, at this moment in your life?

A man swims near a landfill, falls ill, is given antibiotics. A year later, he can’t digest gluten. Doctors test him for celiac disease. Negative. More tests. Negative. Suggestions of anxiety. Psychosomatic IBS.

Until one doctor asks the right question: Did you take probiotics after those antibiotics?

A simple reset. A course correction. And he can eat gluten again.

This isn’t about gluten. This is about context. About remembering that humans aren’t generic machines with plug-and-play fixes. Our bodies carry the weight of our histories—where we’ve been, what we’ve eaten, how we’ve lived.

But today, we love a fast answer. A diagnosis. A disorder. A prescription.

Naval Ravikant says, “The modern struggle is that we’re over-medicated, over-diagnosed, and over-prescribed.”

Instead of listening to our bodies, we let an industry label us, categorize us, and sell us something.

Maybe the real disorder isn’t in us. Maybe it’s in the way we’ve outsourced thinking to a system that sees us as cases, not people.

So next time, before taking the pill, before accepting the label, before adjusting your life to fit a diagnosis—pause. Ask the deeper question.

It might change everything.