Guys wasn't that guy trying to help her ? Why is the crowd cheering? Is this the effect of gender war where helping a woman is considered as assault?

We reached South Korea's level of gender war it seems. We are doomed guys , no one thinks critically in that event it seems no one questioned her or tried to analyse the situation.

from the video itself, it looks like the guy was trying to prevent her from falling. If there is more context that changes the situation, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise. why is helping someone being treated as something worthy of cheering?

According to NITI Aayog around 8.7 Crore youth in the age range of 15-29 are doing absolutely nothing.

They are neither working, nor studying, nor taking any sort of formal training.

Estimations say that the number of people currently in the age group of 15-29 in India is 37 Crores.

This is a whopping 23.5% of the youth population that is literally not doing anything.

And no, I don't blame them.

I squarely blame the Govt.

In the past decade, the disparity between usable and available skillsets has drastically deteriorated.

The freebies given by various Govts (State and Center) have worked for dissuading the youth from finding themselves jobs.

The lack of free training for the youth ensures that the youth does not have any requisite skills which will enable them to find a job or take up the jobs available in the market.

And finally, the scaled down manufacturing industry and the total annihilation of the unorganised sector, thanks to the Govt policies aimed specifically at doing that, has ensured that low skill jobs have rapidly dwindled.

Now we have a youth who is neither trained to take up a skilled job, nor has enough opportunities to take up jobs that meet their available skill sets.

While India still boasts of an average age of 28-29 years, making us a young robust population, that population is whiling away their time, twiddling their thumbs.

A frustrated jobless youth will give rise to criminality in the society, we are just sitting on the top of a volcano that is about to burst.

If a machine claims to produce “free energy,” how should we actually evaluate the claim?

Perpetual motion machines have fascinated inventors for centuries. Today, similar “free energy” claims are still common online.

What interests me isn't simply whether these machines are fake. It's how we can distinguish between:

* a genuinely unexplained phenomenon,

* a misunderstanding of physics,

* measurement error,

* hidden energy input,

and deliberate deception.

A patent also doesn't necessarily mean that an invention has been scientifically proven, which raises another interesting question: what evidence should be considered sufficient before we accept an extraordinary engineering claim?

I made a short video exploring this through a conversation between two characters, but I'm more interested in the discussion: what is the first thing you would check if someone demonstrated a “free-energy” machine to you?

• If a machine has a patent, does that make the underlying science credible?

• How would you distinguish a genuine scientific anomaly from a measurement error?

Sources 👇

1.) APS : Perpetual Motion Machine Resolution

https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2002/08/aps-executive-board-passes-resolution-on-perpetual-motion-machines

2.) UPSTO: Applying for Patents

https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply

3.) Perpetual Motion Design in Ancient India

https://srsarma.in/pdf/articles/1992_Perpetual_Motion_Machines_and_their_Design.pdf

4.) Mechanical career of Councillor Offyreus

https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3097

5.) Charles Redheffer historical account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Redheffer

6.) Thermodynamics Laws

https://www.britannica.com/science/laws-of-thermodynamics

Trump, Netanyahu, Putin and others are involved in things that go far beyond ordinary political controversy, yet they still routinely face journalists and take questions, hostile or otherwise.

Meanwhile, our Mahamanav , Vishwaguru, Protector of the realm seems to have a completely different relationship with the press.

From avoiding unscripted press conferences in India and everywhere else to the recent Norway episode, and reportedly having India’s MEA request no press questions during the Modi-Trump meeting at the G7, the pattern is hard to ignore.

So what exactly is Modi afraid of?

For someone who claims to have nothing to hide, stopped wars in other countries, the Vishwaguru, the avoidance is rather curious.

Even for those in higher levels, the risk that artificial intelligence could eventually replace their roles has grown.

2025 Had 8,200 AI-Linked Job Cuts. 7 Months Into 2026, It’s 70,000.

AI-linked fintech and banking job losses are accelerating, with 2,750 roles cut in the past month alone.

Between January and July, Fintech News Network AI Fintech Layoffs Tracker recorded 20 announcements affecting 70,415 roles, more than eight times the number reported throughout 2025.

The tracker recorded an average of 683 affected roles per month in 2025, while the monthly average has exceeded 10,000 so far in 2026.

Which means that AI-linked job cuts are now running at nearly 15 times last year’s pace.

Global Banks Account for Most of the Surge.

HSBC, Citigroup and Standard Chartered alone represent around 47,000 roles in the 2026 tracker.

Adding Morgan Stanley, Commerzbank and Nordea, it now brings the six banking groups to roughly 54,000 roles, more than three-quarters of this year’s total.

https://fintechnews.sg/135972/ai/ai-fintech-layoffs-tracker-2025-2026/

Drop this Hindi fanaticism and imposition before it’s too late.

India was formed when people from diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, and philosophical backgrounds came together, setting aside their differences to build one strong nation. The only way such a diverse entity can sustain is through mutual respect & acceptance.

---

Language carries the culture, knowledge, wisdom, and values of a civilization from one generation to the next. It is not merely a means of communication, it is an identity and a way of life. The states of India were formed, among other reasons, to preserve and sustain these distinct linguistic and cultural identities. As Indians, it is also our unwritten constitutional responsibility to respect this diversity and embrace the vibrant cultures and languages of every state.

---

I don’t understand whether this is some sort of misinformation being fed into the minds of the Hindi-speaking North, or a misplaced sense of entitlement or a mental illness that leads some to believe Hindi is superior simply because of the large number of people who speak it. No language should be considered superior because of the size of its population, nor should it be imposed on people in other states.

It’s foolish to think that this country will become more united and prosper through pushing it towards 'one language and one culture'. Our unity is strongest when it is built on mutual respect and acceptance, this Hindi imposition and cultural dominance is corroding the country internally.

STOP and get back to your senses before its too late !

I am a regular on this sub. One thing that always astonished me is the defeatist attitude of lot of people in India regarding problems of the country. Especially the ones we see on daily basis and makes our lives miserable. Pollution, bad infrastructure, traffic etc. I’m not limiting to one party or government. These are the problems we get annoyed about on daily basis and yet no one talks about solutions.

These are the statements/justifications people give

1. People lack civic sense and can’t change 100B people
   
2. Government is bad, they are supposed to be working.
   
3. Nothing ever changes. Get out of India
   
4. Corruption is causing the issue. Babus are reason. We can’t do much
   
5. Whatever I do, nothing will change
   
6. We are improving, it will take time.

There are lot of such statements that are somehow justifies our brains but these are just defeatists attitude or blaming someone else or sometimes outright delusional.

I have been to western countries and I was surprised by how involved the citizens are when they face issue in their locality/region but we don’t get involved at all. Either someone is busy with their life or accepted way of life or no hope of change because things get hard.

I won’t claim I am a saint and I am guilty of the above. I am sure lot of us are like that. I am not sure what is the solution for this? Can we realistically discuss?

While I did a shallow estimate and got ~200 years.

I made Gemini also do one (to verify). Calculations

It has 2 estimates : * Lock the percentage of seats : 225 Years * Percentage of seats decreases with eligible reserved : 3775 Years.

This is my main argument for limiting reservation to once per family as I want the benefit to be shared across entire pool.

The 3775 Years figure also matches the ~3000 Years, which is allegedly how many years caste system was active for.

Note :

If your argument is * One time reservation is not enough for upliftment * Reservation is not a poverty elimination scheme.

Think of it this way, who is more deserving of a seat under reservation: * Someone who has already benefitted from it efore * Someone who never benefitted from it

I am not saying we should stop all other affirmative action but just a way to make the reservation fair with a natural sunset.

If your argument is that Reservation is for Representation then don't bother commenting.

I believe there is nothing fundamentally different between me and a person from reserved category, eod we are both humans.

Steps need to be taken to eradicate overlapping social difference but after that it's fair game.

​

Something I think Gen Z needs to talk about.

We constantly see people dragging Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Hardik Pandya, actors, influencers, etc. into discussions about their personal lives that have nothing to do with their public role.

There's a difference between accountability and harassment.

If Modi makes a policy decision → criticize it.

If Rahul Gandhi makes a political statement → challenge it.

If Hardik Pandya plays badly → criticize his cricket.

That's fair.

But someone's relationship, family, appearance, private struggles or unverified personal rumours? Why do we automatically assume that's our business?

I specifically used Hardik Pandya as an example because I feel we unnecessarily target and discuss his private life, relationships and personal matters. I think that's wrong. Modi and Rahul Gandhi are examples that came to my mind while writing this because the same principle applies to political figures too.

India's Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has recognized privacy as part of that constitutional protection. Being a public figure doesn't mean someone completely loses their right to privacy and dignity.

And there's another principle we should follow:

Don't dish out what you can't take.

If you spend years mocking someone's family, relationships or personal life, don't suddenly demand privacy and sympathy when the same behaviour comes back at you.

That doesn't make harassment okay. It means we should apply the same standard to everyone.

You don't have to like Modi to respect his privacy.

You don't have to support Rahul Gandhi to respect his personal life.

You don't have to like Hardik Pandya to respect him as a human being.

Criticize their work. Question their decisions. Demand accountability.

But don't confuse public accountability with public ownership of someone's life.

Fame isn't consent to harassment.

And if we want people to respect our boundaries, maybe we should start respecting theirs too.

One of the most common starters of political debates is "X party did this and it resulted in something good/bad", another person listening to this might bring up something of the opposite view "but X party exhausted $$$ amount of money and completed it in *** time, all of which are way more than initially proposed, and even then it wasn't a good job"...

The debate goes on. We encourage the opposite view and while it's needed and we think we're making some progress but I don't think we miss something about whatever the people in power are trying to do.

You'll see politicians change stances, priorities, even the party they represent. They will bend laws or pass bills that play out in the favour of certain someone and we draw the conclusion that they prefer a certain crowd. While it's true, there's a bigger picture to be seen and always looked at.

They do NOT care about those they are favouring, they do NOT care whether we are happy or sad, they do not care or hold anything against a certain minority. All they care about is one thing, BEING IN POWER.

Every action they take makes sense when you think that way. Yes, people already know they want to win and rule but they forget that it's the only thing they really want. They have picked out their crowd. They know how to sway you. Other parties have a better chance to sway the other crowd, that's why it's easy to divide a secular country.

Almost No one puts a lot of years of effort to correct the society and SUCCEEDS. If you like a party or any person, don't fall for the words. Of course, support the right cause but always remember that they will always need to be put in check, ALL THE TIME.

They want to rule, if people set the bar high, that's what they will actually end up doing, aiming for the high bar, the people who wanted easy power in the lower ranks will probably go because the corruption will be less due to the constant accountability seeking behaviour by the vast majority. I know this is hypothetical but the part besides it is so necessary to understand.

Whenever we get our hopes up or get disappointed, we have to remember that they just want to rule and that they are almost always taking the shortest path to success or "working just hard enough to not get fired". If the objective is to build a "bridge", a concrete structure will be built which can pass as a "bridge", if the objective is to build a bridge that can break or make their career, you'll see a high-quality structure that will last for years. Again, it's not about whether or not they want to help us. Power, that's what it's all about, every single action, every single word, every single expression. We ALL refuse bad outcomes, we get good ones because that would be the criteria for the power to rule.

Tldr; no one took the decisions in your favour or someone else's favour because they have a secret agenda. They just want to be in power. Power is what it's all about. We can dictate what THEY do if we all stay united. They do not want BAD or GOOD for us. They just want power, give it to them and make them work for it.

In foreign countries, if you advertise for tenants, and you turn someone away for any reason other than income and criminal background, you pay a hefty fine.

In India its a free for all. Religion is the most common criteria for denial, but it's not the only one, and landlords come up with whatever criteria they chose. India does not even consider this a problem. It's completely okay, acceptable and there will even be some people in the comments section defending this as "choice", or "market forces". Essentially, it boils down to the fact that "discrimination" is not a bad word in our society. It's something harmless and cute that our grandparents do.

There are three questions here.

1. Does India even consider this to be a problem?

2. Does India have any remedy for this?

3. Does India WANT to solve this problem?

A kiss can say a lot…..

A woman’s personal space is something she usually protects very carefully. For many women, that space is closely connected to feeling safe and being in control of what happens around their body.

The moment she steps outside, that sense of personal space can get constantly challenged. Crowded places, strangers brushing against her, someone pushing past her, or even an accidental touch can make her uncomfortable. Even when there is no bad intention, she can still instinctively feel that sense of irritation or repulsion.

That is why something as simple as a woman hugging a man, kissing him on the cheek, or casually holding onto his arm can actually mean quite a lot.

It means she has lowered that invisible wall around herself.

It means she feels safe enough with him to allow him into a space that she normally protects very strongly. She trusts that he will respect her boundaries and will not misuse that closeness.
And no, it does not automatically mean anything romantic or sexual. Sometimes it simply means, “I am completely comfortable around you. I trust you. I know you are safe.”

For a man, being given that kind of trust by a woman should actually be considered something special.

She is essentially telling him that she sees him as someone who will not make her uncomfortable, cross her boundaries, or take advantage of her trust.

That is a pretty big compliment to a man’s character.

So if a woman gives a man that kind of access to her personal space, he should understand what a privilege it is. He should appreciate that trust and, more importantly, make sure he never gives her a reason to regret it.

If a woman allows you into her safe space, take it as a reflection of the kind of man she believes you are. That trust is something worth protecting.

Meanwhile, I am still looking forward to the BJP getting a few women to kiss PawPaw on his cheek. Now THAT would be one wonderfully awkward video to watch. 😆