I opened my laptop this week to put together some ad content for ApexDevs. Nothing fancy — a short video, a couple of static creatives, maybe a voiceover. The usual stack.

Then I started exploring what's actually out there now.

There's a tool that turns a paragraph of text into a 30-second video with cinematography that would have cost a small studio two weeks of work. There's another that generates a voiceover so clean you cannot tell it's synthetic. There's an image tool that produced four polished concepts for me in the time it took to refill my coffee. The output wasn't "AI-looking" anymore. It was production-grade. It was the kind of thing I would have paid an agency for, eighteen months ago.

And I sat there with my half-written brief and realized something uncomfortable: the part I was about to spend three days on — the execution — was no longer the hard part. Anyone with a credit card and an afternoon could now produce what I was planning to produce.

So what is the hard part? What is left for me, the human, to do?

The output was never the imagination

Here's what I started seeing once the initial panic wore off. When a tool generates a beautiful 30-second ad from a prompt, that is not imagination. That is recombination — extraordinarily fast, extraordinarily fluent recombination of patterns the model has already seen. A mirror polished to a mirror finish.

A lot of what I used to call "being creative" was actually the same thing, just slower. I was pulling from ads I'd seen, remixing references, borrowing a transition from one campaign and a color palette from another. The AI does this at a scale I cannot match, and pretending otherwise is the road to working very hard for very little reason.

But the actual generative act — the thing that makes one ad land and another scroll past — was never the rendering. It was the framing. The decision about what story is even worth telling about ApexDevs in the first place. The angle. The insight about who we're really talking to and what they're really feeling at 11pm on a Tuesday when they see our ad.

That is the upgrade. That is the floor I have to climb to now.

What that actually looks like, concretely

Sitting with my ApexDevs brief, I started rewriting my own job description. A few things that felt real:

Imagining the question, not the answer. The AI is fantastic at answering "make me an ad that shows developers being productive." It is useless at deciding whether that is even the right thing to show. Maybe the real ad is about the 2am bug nobody talks about. Maybe it's about the manager who keeps adding scope. Maybe the entire category is making the same ad and ours should look nothing like it. That decision — the framing — is mine. Spending an hour on the brief is now worth more than spending three days on the edit.

Imagining across domains. Every dev-tool ad looks like every other dev-tool ad. Dark mode, neon accents, code on screen, fast cuts. The interesting move is to crash ApexDevs into a genre it does not belong in — a cooking show, a nature documentary, a stand-up bit, a noir film. The AI will not suggest that on its own. It will give you the average of what already exists. The leap across domains is a human move.

Imagining what is missing. I spent an hour looking at what every competitor in our space was saying. What I was really looking for was what nobody was saying. The gap. The thing developers actually care about that nobody has put into an ad yet. That kind of looking — patient, lateral, slightly bored — is not something I can prompt my way to.

Imagining with stakes. The tools do not care if ApexDevs succeeds. I do. The ads that work are almost always the ones that come from someone who has actually felt the problem — sat with the frustration, watched a teammate burn out, shipped something broken at 3am. That texture cannot be generated. It has to be lived and then translated. Lean into the parts of the work that are downstream of your actual life.

Imagining longer than a campaign. The tools are built to respond to short prompts. They optimize for the next 30 seconds. But what does ApexDevs mean in three years? What kind of brand do I want it to be when I am no longer the one writing the ads? Long-horizon thinking is a moat. Models do not have it. I do, if I make the time.

The uncomfortable part

This shift is harder than learning the new tools. You cannot do it in a weekend course. It requires reading things outside marketing, talking to actual customers without an agenda, going for long walks without your phone, sitting with a brief instead of jumping to execution. It requires the kind of slowness that "ship fast" culture is structured to eliminate.

It also requires being bad at it for a while. The first few times you try to spot what's missing in a category, you will mostly see things that are missing for good reason. The first cross-domain ad concept you pitch will probably be terrible. This is the cost of admission. The marketers and founders who pay it will be the ones whose ads actually mean something in a feed where everything else looks the same.

The good news for ApexDevs — and everyone else

Here is what I told myself after I closed the brief and went for a walk. The bar for competent just collapsed. Anyone can now produce a competent ad. Which means competence is no longer a moat. It is table stakes. Which means the energy I used to spend on execution — finding the right stock footage, color-grading, getting the voiceover redone — I get back. All of it.

I can spend it on the part that was always the point: deciding what is actually worth saying about ApexDevs, to whom, and why now.

The creators and founders who will matter over the next few years are not the ones who learned to prompt faster. They are the ones who learned to think in places the tools cannot reach yet — further out, deeper down, more strangely sideways. The technology has raised the floor. Our job is to raise the ceiling.

I came in to make an ad. I left rethinking what an ad even is. That is the upgrade. And honestly, it feels like the most interesting time to be doing this work in a long time.

ApexDevs wasn't born out of a polished startup pitch or a hackathon idea I was trying to dress up as a company. It was born out of something quieter, and frankly, more uncomfortable — watching too many capable students around me get politely turned away from the thing they were told to chase their whole lives.

A job. Even an internship. Even an interview, sometimes.

This post is about why I decided to build it anyway.

The students nobody is building for

If you scroll through LinkedIn for ten minutes, you'll see the same thing on loop. The IIT kid who landed a 40 LPA offer. The girl who cracked Google in her third year. The boy who shipped an open-source project that ended up on Hacker News. We celebrate them, and we should — they worked for it.

But there is a much, much larger group of students that nobody is building for.

The average and below-average Indian student. Not the topper. Not the kid with five hackathon trophies. Just a regular student from a regular college, sitting in a regular tier-2 or tier-3 city, watching everyone around them collect "experience" through connections, internships at uncle's company, or sheer luck — while they refresh Naukri and Internshala one more time.

These students are not lazy. They're not unintelligent. They've simply never been allowed inside a real working environment to find out what they're actually capable of. They've never sat in a Slack channel where someone reviews their work. Never had a manager send a "small request" at 6:47 PM. Never been told their first version isn't good enough and to ship a v2 by Friday.

They've read about it. They've watched YouTubers describe it. They've scrolled through Glassdoor reviews trying to imagine what an actual office day looks like. But they've never tasted it.

And here is the cruel part of the system: every single job description asks for that taste before they're allowed to have it.

"Minimum 6 months experience required"

Read that line again. It is on almost every fresher posting in this country.

Think about what it really means. To get experience, you need experience. To get into the room, you need to have already been in the room. The door is locked from the inside, and the people who got in early are the ones holding the keys.

If you grew up with the right network, you got an internship through a family friend. If you went to a top-tier college, recruiters came to you. If you didn't — if you came from a regular family in a regular city studying at a regular institution — you were quietly told to "build projects" on your own and hope someone notices.

So students do that. They build a to-do app. A weather app. A clone of something. They put it on GitHub. And then they sit through interviews where the recruiter glances at it for four seconds and asks where they've worked before.

The system is dishonest about what it actually rewards. It pretends to reward skill, but it really rewards proof of having already been employed somewhere.

Why classroom projects don't fix this

I want to be direct about something else. Most college projects, bootcamp capstones, and online course "final projects" are not preparing students for work. They're preparing students for more course content.

A real work environment is not a tutorial. There is no instructor showing you the answer at the end of the video. The brief is unclear. The deadline is uncomfortable. Someone reviews your output and tells you what's wrong with it. You fix it. You ship it. Next week, there is a new brief.

That cycle — brief, build, review, revise, ship, repeat — is the actual skill of working. And almost no student gets to practice it before they're suddenly expected to perform it on day one of their first job.

This is the gap I kept staring at. Not a skill gap. An environment gap.

What ApexDevs is, in plain words

ApexDevs is my attempt to give regular students a real, structured taste of working life — before the job market asks them to prove they have it.

Here's how it actually works:

• A student applies, and we verify their documents.

• They get matched with an industry mentor in the direction they actually want to go — not whatever happens to be available.

• They pick a programme length: 4, 8, or 12 weeks.

• Every single week, they ship a real deliverable. Not a tutorial. Not a quiz. A project aligned with where they want their career to go.

• Their mentor reviews it, gives them honest feedback, and unlocks the next week's work.

• At the end, they walk away with three things they can actually put in front of an employer:

  1. A signed internship offer letter (after document verification).

  2. A portfolio of mentor-reviewed, career-aligned projects.

  3. A digitally-signed, verifiable completion certificate.

The whole lifecycle — applications, verification, mentor matching, weekly reviews, certificate issuance — runs on a single platform at apexdevs.net.

That's it. No fluff. No "you'll learn the secrets of FAANG." Just a real working environment, structured around real feedback, in a country where most students have never been let into one.

What I want to be honest about

ApexDevs is not magic. It will not turn a disengaged student into a top performer in four weeks. It will not guarantee anyone a job at a specific company. I'm not interested in selling that fantasy — there are already enough people doing that.

What it will do is give a student something they've been denied for years: the experience of being treated like a working professional. Of having a mentor who expects something of them. Of getting feedback that's neither cruel nor coddling. Of finishing a week and being able to point at something and say, "I built that, and someone in the industry signed off on it."

For a student from a regular background, that experience is genuinely life-changing. Not because the certificate is impressive on its own, but because the student who finishes the programme is a different person from the one who started it. They've been inside the room now. The door isn't mysterious anymore.

Why I'm doing this

Honestly? Because I'm tired of watching capable people get filtered out of opportunities by a system that pretends to be a meritocracy.

I'm tired of the polite rejection emails sent to students who never had a fair shot in the first place. I'm tired of "minimum experience required" being the first line of every fresher posting. I'm tired of the quiet, unspoken understanding in this country that opportunity is something you inherit, not something you earn.

ApexDevs is small right now. It might always be small. But every student who comes through it walks out with something real — a portfolio they built, a mentor who knows their work, and proof that they can do the job. And that is enough of a reason for me to keep building it.

If you're a student who has been refreshing job portals wondering when your turn comes — your turn doesn't come. You take it. And I'd like to help you take it.

Come find us at apexdevs.net.

Every day, millions of people open their phones and scroll through ads promising financial freedom in 30 days. Crypto signals. Day-trading courses. Dropshipping blueprints. Passive income "systems." The dream is always the same: make money without really working for it.And every day, those same people are quietly wasting something far more valuable than money — their time, their attention, and their potential.

The Pursuit of Quick Money Is a Detour, Not a Shortcut

Here's the brutal paradox: the people spending hours chasing "quick money" schemes are often working harder than those building real, sustainable income. They're researching, buying courses, testing strategies, losing money, and starting over — all while convincing themselves they're close to a breakthrough.

Morgan Housel, in his landmark book The Psychology of Money, makes this painfully clear. He writes that wealth is not about how much you earn — it's about how much you keep, and for how long. True wealth, he argues, is built slowly, invisibly, through the compounding of small, consistent decisions over time. It doesn't look exciting. It doesn't go viral. But it works.

The quick-money mindset is the exact opposite. It is loud, urgent, and emotionally driven. And that urgency is precisely what makes it so costly.

Time Is the One Thing You Cannot Earn Back

The real cost of chasing shortcuts isn't just financial. It's temporal. Every hour spent watching "how I made $10K in a week" videos, testing new trading bots, or chasing the next NFT drop is an hour not spent building a real skill, deepening a relationship, or compounding genuine knowledge.

Cal Newport, in Deep Work, argues that the ability to focus without distraction on cognitively demanding tasks is one of the rarest and most valuable skills in the modern economy. People who chase quick-money schemes train themselves to do the exact opposite — to skim, to hop, to react. They are slowly destroying their capacity for the kind of deep, disciplined work that actually creates long-term value.

The numbers are sobering. Research consistently shows that the vast majority of retail day traders lose money over time. Studies suggest that more than 70% of day traders quit within two years, most of them with less than they started. The ones who "win" in online testimonials are the exception, displayed precisely because they are exceptional — a classic case of what Nassim Taleb calls survivorship bias in The Black Swan. We see the winners. We never see the thousands who quietly lost.

The Myth That "Free" Has No Price

The second illusion is equally damaging: the belief that free things cost nothing.

Free apps. Free content. Free tools. Free advice. These feel like gifts. They are not. The price is simply hidden.

When you use a free product, you are almost always the product. Your data, your attention, your behavioral patterns — these are sold. As the old maxim goes, popularised widely in the context of social media: if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.

But there is a deeper cost that is rarely talked about. Because something is free, we value it at zero. We download apps we never open. We collect free PDFs we never read. We attend free webinars we half-watch from another tab. The result is a dangerous illusion — the feeling of productivity and self-improvement without any of the actual substance.

Robert Cialdini, in Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains how the principle of reciprocity and perceived value shapes our behaviour. When we pay for something, we commit to it psychologically. We show up differently. We extract more value. Price, paradoxically, is often what makes something useful.

The Hidden Tax of "Free" Information

Nowhere is this more damaging than in how we consume information.

The internet is overflowing with free financial advice. YouTube channels, Reddit threads, Twitter threads — endless opinions from people whose actual track record you cannot verify. And because it's free, we consume it carelessly, without the filter we'd apply to a book we paid for or a course we invested in.

Benjamin Graham, in The Intelligent Investor — a book Warren Buffett has called the best investment book ever written — warned decades ago about the emotional and psychological traps that lead ordinary people to make poor financial decisions. Chief among them: reacting to noise, following the crowd, and confusing activity with progress. Free financial content on social media is almost entirely noise. It is engineered to provoke reaction, not to build wealth.

The irony is devastating. In trying to save money by consuming free advice, people end up making expensive mistakes that paid, professional guidance might have prevented.

What We Are Really Wasting

The chase for quick money and the obsession with free things share the same root: an unwillingness to pay the real price for real things.

The real price of wealth is years of skill-building, delayed gratification, and patient compounding.

The real price of quality information is the money, time, and effort to seek it out deliberately.

The real price of a good tool is what you pay for reliability, ownership, and trust.

When we refuse to pay these prices, we don't avoid the cost. We pay it in a far worse currency — wasted years, shallow expertise, and the slow erosion of our own potential.

James Clear, in Atomic Habits, describes this perfectly through the concept of the "plateau of latent potential." Nothing seems to be working, and then — after sustained, boring, invisible effort — results compound suddenly and dramatically. Most people quit in the plateau. They mistake the absence of visible results for the absence of progress. Quick-money culture makes this worse by constantly dangling the idea that someone else is already at the peak, and that you should be too.

A Different Way to Think About Time and Value

Start asking one honest question before any "opportunity": What is the real price of this, and am I willing to pay it?

If a course promises income in 30 days, the real price might be years of credibility if it fails — and weeks of your attention either way. If a free tool saves you $20 a month, the real price might be your data, hours lost to workarounds, and the cost of migrating later.

The most successful people in any field didn't get there by cutting corners. They paid upfront. They invested time before they saw returns. They treated their attention as the scarce and precious resource it actually is.

As Housel reminds us in The Psychology of Money: "The ability to do ordinary things for an extraordinary length of time is the most powerful force in finance." That is not a sexy idea. It will never trend on social media. But it is the truth that most "quick money" content will never tell you — because the truth doesn't sell courses.

The Bottom Line

Stop wasting time trying to save time. Stop consuming free content that costs you your focus. Stop chasing quick money that costs you years.

The most powerful investment you can make is not in a trending coin or a viral business idea. It is in your own skills, your own discipline, and your own patience. These compound. Everything else is just noise.

Read slowly. Invest consistently. Work deeply. Pay for quality.

The shortcut was always the longest route.

The CS job market is contracting. AI is reshaping software. And yet, game development may be the most human-proof career in tech.

If you've been watching the tech industry for the past two years, you've seen the headlines. Mass layoffs at major studios. Junior developer roles evaporating as AI code generation matures. Computer science graduates struggling to find entry-level positions that barely existed a few years ago. It's a sobering landscape — especially if you're considering a career in game development, which sits right at the intersection of "creative field" and "software engineering."

So is it still worth it? I'd argue yes — but with clear eyes about what that actually means.

The honest picture

The CS market contraction is real and it disproportionately affects roles that are purely functional — CRUD apps, boilerplate backends, routine front-end work. These are exactly the tasks AI handles with frightening competence. A junior developer who spent their first years writing predictable code is increasingly competing with a well-prompted language model.

Game development is different, though not immune. Big studios like EA, Ubisoft, and Unity itself have shed thousands of positions since 2023. Mid-sized developers have consolidated. The era of easy greenlit AAA projects seems to be fading. If your plan was to graduate, send out résumés, and land at a major studio — that path is genuinely harder than it was. 

"AI can generate a shader, debug a collision loop, and scaffold a UI. It cannot decide what a game should feel like to play."

What AI actually can't do (yet)

Here's where it gets interesting. The parts of game development that AI is disrupting — asset generation, boilerplate systems, repetitive animation loops — were never the soul of the craft. What remains stubbornly human is the question of feel: the weight of a sword swing, the satisfying arc of a jump, the moment a player loses track of time. These emerge from taste, iteration, and empathy — things that can't be reliably prompted.

Game design, level design, narrative systems, sound direction, creative direction — these disciplines are not disappearing. In some ways, AI tools are making individual developers more potent: a single person with strong creative instincts and AI-assisted production can build something that previously required a team. The indie renaissance hasn't ended; it's evolving.

The mindset shift that matters

The old model was: learn a skill, join a studio, move up the ladder. The new model looks more like: develop taste, build things obsessively, and treat AI as a collaborator that handles the tedious parts so you can focus on the interesting ones.

This means the bar for entering the industry has changed shape, not just height. You don't need to be a better C++ programmer than a language model. You need to be a more interesting designer than any prompt. Technical fluency still matters — understanding what's happening under the hood makes you a better director of AI tools — but it's no longer the sole differentiator.

The practical case for choosing game dev anyway

The global games market continues to grow, passing $200 billion and showing no signs of reversal. Demand for interactive experiences is expanding into simulation, training, and virtual production. The tools to build games — Godot, Unreal, Unity, custom engines — are more accessible than ever. And crucially, games are one of the last software categories where the human fingerprint is a feature, not a bug. Players can tell when something has been made with care.

If you're drawn to games because you want to build things people love, because you find the design problems genuinely interesting, because you've spent hours modding or prototyping or just obsessively studying why certain experiences work — those instincts are worth following. The market will reward craft that AI can't replicate. It will punish generic output regardless of who or what produced it.

Go in with open eyes

Don't romanticize the industry. Studio culture can be brutal, crunch is real, and the gap between "passionate indie dev" and "sustainable career" is wide. Have a financial runway. Consider the indie path seriously — lower ceiling, but more control. Specialise in areas that require judgment: systems design, creative direction, UX, audio. Learn to use AI tools without becoming dependent on them for the parts that define your voice.

The CS market decline is a signal that generic software work is being commoditised. Game development, at its best, was never generic. If you're willing to bring something irreplaceable to it, the field still needs you — maybe more than before.

The switch wasn't impulsive. I'd been using Claude on the side for a while, curious but not fully committed. Then, slowly, I noticed something: I was ending up on Claude more and more for the things that actually mattered to me — long pieces of writing, nuanced discussions, tasks that needed careful thinking rather than fast answers. 

A few weeks ago I was debugging a smart contract late at night — the kind of session where you forget time exists. But something kept nagging at me beyond the code. The news feed was full of stories about semiconductor export bans, AI chip restrictions, undersea cable disputes, and countries racing to wall off their digital borders. And here I was, building on a blockchain network that by design belongs to no one and everyone.

The contrast hit hard. The technology we build is increasingly borderless. The politics governing it is increasingly territorial. And somewhere in that gap lives one of the most important questions of our generation: who owns the future, and who gets left out?

Vasudeva Kutumbakam - a Sanskrit phrase from the Maha Upanishad - translates as "the world is one family." It is not a soft platitude. It is a philosophical assertion that the boundaries we draw between us and them are ultimately artificial constructs, and that our shared humanity transcends them. The question today is whether our technology policy agrees.

The Geopolitics of Technology: A New Cold War

We are living through the de-globalisation of technology. What was once framed as an open, universal commons — the internet, open-source software, shared scientific research — is now being carved into geopolitical spheres of influence.

The US has placed sweeping restrictions on advanced AI chips reaching China. China has built its own internet ecosystem behind the Great Firewall. The EU is establishing its own AI regulatory framework, often at odds with both. India is asserting data localisation requirements. Even semiconductor supply chains — once celebrated as a triumph of globalised efficiency — are being reshored as matters of national security.

The rhetoric has shifted from "the world is flat" to "trust no one outside your alliance." And technology has become the primary battlefield.

"When the most powerful technologies are designed to serve one nation's interest, the rest of the world isn't just behind — it's excluded by design."

The Intervention Problem: Who Gets to Decide?

Here's what troubles me most as a developer and researcher: the technology itself rarely has an ideology. A transformer model doesn't care about borders. A blockchain ledger doesn't check passports. The protocols that power the web were deliberately designed to route around centralised control. And yet, the infrastructure, the compute, the capital, and increasingly the code itself is under the control of a handful of nations and corporations.

When a government bans a platform, who loses? Not the government. Not the tech giant. The people — specifically, ordinary citizens in countries without the leverage to negotiate on equal terms — lose access to tools for economic participation, communication, and learning.

When AI models are trained exclusively on data from wealthy, English-dominant economies, they encode biases that marginalise the global majority. When cloud providers store data in jurisdictions with aggressive surveillance laws, users in smaller nations have no meaningful recourse. This is technological intervention in slow motion — and most people don't even realise it's happening.

The Fragmentation Reality

National AI strategies, chip export controls, data localisation, and platform bans are actively splitting the digital world into competing blocs.

The Dependency Trap

Developing nations depend on foreign cloud, foreign models, and foreign platforms — with little sovereignty over the data or the rules.

The Open-Source Hope

Projects like Linux, Wikipedia, and public blockchains prove that shared infrastructure built on mutual contribution can transcend national interest.

The Multilateral Push

Frameworks like the ITU's AI for Good, UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations, and open LLM initiatives aim to redistribute power — slowly.

Shared Resources: The Commons Under Siege

In the early internet era, there was a genuine belief that cyberspace would be a global commons — shared, open, ungoverned by any single sovereign. That vision was never fully realised, but it shaped the architecture of everything from TCP/IP to the World Wide Web. The shared resource model was the design intent.

Today, that commons is under pressure from multiple directions. Spectrum is auctioned by national regulators. Satellites are launched by private corporations with national licenses. AI training data is scraped, hoarded, and monetised behind proprietary walls. Even the ocean floor — where the undersea cables carrying 99% of international internet traffic lie — is now a theatre of strategic competition.

As someone deep in the blockchain space, I find this fascinating because public blockchains represent one of the few genuinely surviving examples of the shared-resource model. No one owns Ethereum. No single government can shut it down. The rules are enforced by mathematics and consensus, not by political authority. It is imperfect, it is messy, it is slow — but it is genuinely shared. That's rare. And it's worth protecting.

The irony is that the countries most enthusiastic about controlling technology resources are the same ones that benefit most from the open commons that made their tech industries possible. The internet didn't grow because of walls. It grew because of protocols that anyone could implement.

Vasudeva Kutumbakam as a Technology Policy Framework

Here's the thought that I keep returning to: what if we applied Vasudeva Kutumbakam not as sentiment, but as a genuine design principle for technology governance?

It would mean asking, before any technology policy decision: does this expand or shrink the family? Does it increase the number of people who can participate, build, learn, and benefit — or does it concentrate that power in fewer hands?

Practically, this looks like: open standards over proprietary lock-in. Multilateral AI governance rather than unilateral export controls. Public compute infrastructure that smaller nations can access without geopolitical strings attached. Data frameworks that give communities ownership over what they generate. And — critically — technology education investments that ensure the next generation of builders isn't concentrated in three zip codes.

India, interestingly, is in a unique position here. As a country that has articulated Vasudeva Kutumbakam as its civilisational philosophy and brought it to the G20 stage during its 2023 presidency ("One Earth, One Family, One Future"), India has a real opportunity to model what technology governance that centres shared benefit actually looks like. The Digital Public Infrastructure stack — Aadhaar, UPI, ONDC — is one example of open-architecture thinking applied at scale. It is not perfect, and the privacy debates are real. But the intent to build shared infrastructure rather than capture rent from it is philosophically aligned with the idea of one family.

"The question isn't whether we can build technology that serves all of humanity. We clearly can. The question is whether we choose to."

Where Does This Leave Us as Builders?

I think about this a lot as a developer. The tools I use every day — open-source libraries, public APIs, community forums, collaborative research papers — exist because someone before me believed that the rising tide should lift all boats. I benefit from a global commons that I did not build and cannot take credit for.

That places a kind of responsibility on me. When I write code, when I design systems, when I choose between a proprietary solution and an open one — those are not neutral technical decisions. They are, in a small way, votes on what kind of world I want to help build.

I'm not naive about geopolitics. Nations will pursue their interests. Corporations will protect their moats. The competition for technological supremacy is real and intensifying. But within those constraints, there is still room for choices — in architecture, in governance, in who we bring along.

Blockchain taught me that trustless coordination between strangers is not just possible — it is engineerable. Climate science taught us that shared resources require shared governance, or they collapse. And Vasudeva Kutumbakam, that 2,500-year-old idea, keeps reminding me that the smartest thing humanity ever figured out is that we are stronger together than we are apart.

The wires may be fragmented. The philosophy doesn't have to be.

वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्

The world is one family — Maha Upanishad, Chapter 6, Verse 72

I just got back from IGDC 2025 and wow, it was epic. IGDC (India Game Developer Conference) 5-7 November is the country’s premier event for game creators and industry pros, and this year it brought everyone together in Chennai. I hung out with designers, programmers, artists, animators and the whole creative crew. Gamers, content creators and developers were everywhere – it felt like a huge community reunion. It was so cool catching up with old friends and making new ones in our gamer/dev squad. 

Key Takeaways

IGDC was packed with talks and booths, but the biggest moments were the aha’s that I jotted down. Here are my top learnings from the conference:

• Gaming = Mainstream Career: No doubt, gaming and game dev have blown up into a legit career path now. Industry reports back this up – for example, Meta’s India lead said the gaming market is set to be worth nearly $7.5 billion and create 250,000 new jobs by 2025. As one expert put it, “Gaming is no longer niche. It is mainstream, inclusive, and dynamic”. In other words, all those hours we spent gaming? They can turn into real careers, from design to coding to esports. IGDC showed that everyone (students, coders, artists) can jump in and level up their skills for the gaming industry.

• Indie Dev is Totally Doable: We heard a lot about how indie game dev is thriving because of accessible tools and marketplaces. Nowadays even a small team or solo dev can build something great. Engines like Unity, Unreal Engine or Godot give you powerful building blocks, and their asset stores are packed with 3D models, sounds, and code snippets you can plug in. In fact, Unity’s huge community and asset repository make development way easier than it used to be. As one blog put it, thanks to modern tech “indie developers can create games that rival those made by big studios”. So if you’ve got a killer game idea but limited resources, rest assured the tools are there to back you up.

• Games as Human Art: Beyond tech, games are a way to infuse real human emotion into tech. I loved talks on how games let us express empathy, joy, fear, and all kinds of feels. A character’s struggle or triumph can make players literally feel their heart race or want to laugh. That connection — making players relate to characters — is something unique to games. As one source explains, when players “relate to the characters and feel the stakes, every success and failure becomes personal”. In other words, games aren’t just code and pixels; they’re a medium where developers pour in human touch and make us care. We saw many examples at IGDC of small studios creating powerful, emotional experiences on a budget. It was inspiring to see tech and heart come together.

What’s In It for You?

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re a gamer or thinking about a future in games (or maybe both). Good news – IGDC taught us where the industry is headed, and Centurion University is jumping on board too. We’re launching new Diploma and Certificate programs in Game Development (covering design, programming, art, animation, etc.) that will be taught in a hybrid format.

• Diploma & Certificate Courses: Comprehensive training in game design, development, and production. These programs will cover everything from art and animation to coding game mechanics.

• Industry Tie-Ins: The curriculum is aligned with industry standards, including Unity and Unreal Engine certification. (After all, Unity’s versatility and asset store make it one of the top engines for indie and pro devs)

• Get Ready to Level Up: Whether you’re a student planning your career, or a gamer who wants to turn passion into profession, these courses are for you. If IGDC sparked that fire in you, fill out our interest form and stay tuned for details. (Seriously, fill it – your future game-dev squad is waiting.)

Gaming and game dev are exploding in India right now, and IGDC 2025 was proof. The community is thriving, the tools are there, and there are more paths than ever to make it a career. I’m super excited for what comes next – and I hope you are too. See you at the next level!

Watch the IGDC Tout: https://youtu.be/TTe_cQmCSOY 

When you start your journey in Computer Science — whether as a first-year student just opening your first “Hello World” file, or as a final-year student applying for jobs — one question always lingers:

“Should I explore everything a little or master one thing deeply?”

This is the classic Breadth vs Depth dilemma. And the truth is — both paths have their place, depending on where you are in your journey.

Let’s unpack this.

Stage 1: The Explorer Phase (1st–2nd Year) — Go Broad

At the start, your goal should be exploration. This is when you taste different domains like- web development, game design, AI, blockchain, cybersecurity, cloud, AR/VR, and so on.

Here’s why breadth matters early on:

• You’ll discover your natural interests instead of just following trends.

• You’ll understand how different technologies connect — for example, how backend APIs power games or how data structures are used in AI.

• You’ll build a mental map of the tech ecosystem, which helps you talk intelligently in interviews and projects later.

Think of it like visiting a buffet — try everything first before deciding your favorite dish.

Tip: Join hackathons, student clubs, and workshops. Don’t chase mastery yet — chase curiosity.

Stage 2: The Builder Phase (3rd–4th Year) — Go Deep

Once you’ve explored enough, it’s time to pick a lane and go all in. Depth gives you expertise, and expertise gets you opportunities.

• If you’ve realized you love backend systems, become the person who can build scalable APIs.

• If you’re drawn to AI, dive deep into model optimization, not just importing libraries.

• If you love game design, understand not only Unity but also the psychology of player engagement.

Depth helps you:

• Build projects that stand out in interviews.

• Develop problem-solving skills beyond tutorials.

• Gain confidence to mentor juniors or lead teams.

Tip: Choose one domain and one long-term project. Treat it as your signature work — something that says, “This is what I stand for.”

Stage 3: The Professional Phase (Fresher–Early Career) — Mix Both

Once you step into the job market, the real advantage comes from the balance between breadth and depth.

Employers value:

• Breadth - because you can collaborate across teams, adapt, and communicate in the language of multiple technologies.

• Depth — because you can solve problems independently and drive projects to completion.

A good professional knows a bit about many things but a lot about one thing.

Example:
A blockchain developer who understands front-end integration, data pipelines, and DevOps is far more valuable than one who just writes smart contracts.

So, Which Path Should You Follow?

• If you’re a beginner: Go broad. Explore, play, and learn without fear.

• If you’re mid-way: Choose one domain and start going deep.

• If you’re near graduation or job hunting: Balance both — become a T-shaped professional.

  • Broad across disciplines

  • Deep in one expertise

My Final Thought

The world doesn’t need another coder who just follows tutorials. It needs learners who explore widely and then specialize smartly — who can see the big picture and solve deep problems.

Don’t stress about whether you’re “too broad” or “too deep” right now. Focus on your phase, stay curious, and keep building.

Because in the end, your journey in CS is not about how many tools you know —

It’s about how well you can think, build, and connect ideas.

I am always happy to guide you. Thank You.

Picture a yoga mat unfurling alongside a dual-monitor setup. You stretch into Balasana, the Child’s Pose, and exhale. That tension in your neck, the lines around your eyes from too many Slack pings—they melt.

I’m Abhi Mitra—a software developer weaving blockchain logic and gaming loops by day and rooted in asanas by sunrise. In the digital labyrinth of algorithms and Agile boards, our minds often ping every bit of stress, burnout, and inner unrest. That’s why mental health isn’t a sidebar—it’s the very architecture of well-being.

Why mental health matters—especially for tech folks

The numbers get uncomfortably real:

• Over half of tech professionals—around 52%—report experiencing depression or anxiety Talkspace for BusinessZevo Health.

• A staggering 62% feel physically and emotionally drained after a workday; 42% of them are flirting with quitting soon WebMD Health Servicesnetcomtraining.co.uk.

• Productivity stumbles too: 71% say mental health struggles dent their output, and 57% report burnout DEV Community.

High-pressure sprints, chronic multitasking, and that nagging push for one more deploy—it wears us down. Too often, we automate workflows but neglect the human in the loop.

How tech disturbs our innate balance

We’ve got an attention-eater in our midst: media multitasking. Dizzying screen-switching is linked to ratcheted-up anxiety, diminished cognitive control, and even social unease Wikipedia.

On top of that, AI looms like an existential bug:

• Roughly 75% of workers fear AI may obsolete their roles; 71% feel more concerned about it than a year ago Wikipedia.

• That ambiguity? Fuel for anxiety and burnout Axios.

In short, our minds are often trapped in feedback loops, stuck between screens and uncertainty.

The yoga antidote: restoring the human byte

Yoga isn’t about perfect alignment—it’s a gentle reboot. Research shows:

• Yoga lifts mood by boosting GABA, serotonin, dopamine—our brain’s lullaby and cheering squad Harvard HealthEatingWell.

• It diminishes stress hormones like cortisol, taming inflammation and emotional reactivity EatingWellLippincott Journals.

• Even a 12-week intervention significantly reduces anxiety and stress in students Frontiers.

• In more focused studies, hot yoga twice weekly led to 44% in remission from depression—nearly half!—after eight weeks Vogue.

• Millennials and Zoom-nomads fighting IBS saw better digestion, less stress, and improved function with yoga five times a week for three months The Times of India.

Even in software engineering environments, though quantitative gains weren’t statistically massive, participants felt better—and that qualitative shift is still important arXiv.

How to integrate yoga into your tech life:

Start with micro-practices. Try these short resets between commits:

• Legs-Up-the-Wall (Viparita Karani): calms the nervous system, washes away screen panic The Times of India.

• Bridge Pose (Setu Bandhasana): opens the chest, uplifts the mood The Times of India.

• Savasana: let gravity do the debugging; integrate body, mind, breath The Times of India.

Aim for consistency, not extremes. A few minutes of mindful breath and stretch can add up. Pair yoga with Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for emotional clarity and stress relief Wikipedia.

A little thing: 120 minutes per week in nature—even a stroll under trees—boosts mental clarity and counters screen fatigue Wikipedia. Walk, observe, breathe. That's real unplugging.

Your yoga-tech blueprint:

1. Make it habitual: Slot in one 10-minute session between sprints or meetings.

2. Track joy, not just metrics: Maybe your code compiles slower, but you’re less restless.

3. Blend mindfulness: Sync asana with breath and presence; that’s where calm lives.

4. Share. Be vulnerable. Normalize. When you say, “I’m doing yoga now—not debugging,” you open a human moment.

1. Ethereum (ETH)

USP: The pioneer of smart contracts, Ethereum remains the most widely used blockchain for decentralized applications (dApps), DeFi, and NFTs.

Consensus Mechanism: Transitioned from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS) with the Merge in 2022.

Growth Potential: Ethereum’s shift to PoS has significantly reduced its energy consumption, while Layer 2 solutions like Arbitrum and Optimism are addressing scalability. The upcoming Danksharding upgrade will further enhance throughput, solidifying Ethereum’s position as the backbone of Web3.

2. Solana (SOL)

USP: Known for its blazing-fast transaction speeds (65,000 TPS) and low fees, Solana is a favorite for high-frequency trading and Web3 applications.

Consensus Mechanism: Proof of History (PoH) combined with Proof of Stake (PoS).

Growth Potential: Despite occasional network outages, Solana’s ecosystem is thriving, with strong projects in DeFi, NFTs, and gaming. Its focus on scalability and developer-friendly tools makes it a strong contender for mass adoption.

3. Avalanche (AVAX)

USP: Avalanche’s subnet architecture allows for customizable blockchains, enabling high scalability and interoperability.

Consensus Mechanism: Avalanche Consensus (a variant of Proof of Stake).

Growth Potential: With institutional partnerships (e.g., Deloitte) and a growing DeFi ecosystem, Avalanche is positioning itself as a bridge between traditional finance and blockchain. 

4. Polygon (MATIC)

USP: A leading Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solution, Polygon offers low fees and fast transactions while maintaining Ethereum compatibility.

Consensus Mechanism: Proof of Stake (PoS).

Growth Potential: Polygon’s focus on zk-rollups (e.g., Polygon zkEVM) and partnerships with major brands like Nike and Reddit highlight its potential to become the go-to scaling solution for Ethereum.

5. Cardano (ADA)

USP: A research-driven blockchain with a focus on sustainability, security, and peer-reviewed development.

Consensus Mechanism: Ouroboros Proof of Stake (PoS).

Growth Potential: Cardano’s growing DeFi and NFT ecosystem, coupled with its focus on emerging markets, makes it a blockchain to watch.

6. Polkadot (DOT)

USP: Polkadot’s parachain architecture enables cross-chain interoperability, allowing specialized blockchains to communicate seamlessly.

Consensus Mechanism: Nominated Proof of Stake (NPoS).

Growth Potential: With a strong developer community and a growing ecosystem of parachains, Polkadot is well-positioned to enable a multi-chain future.

7. Binance Smart Chain (BSC)

USP: Backed by Binance, BSC offers low fees and high throughput, making it a popular choice for DeFi and gaming.

Consensus Mechanism: Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA).

Growth Potential: BSC’s strong ecosystem and continuous upgrades ensure its relevance in the blockchain space. 

8. Sui (SUI)

USP: A high-performance Layer 1 blockchain with a focus on scalability and developer experience.

Consensus Mechanism: Narwhal & Bullshark Proof of Stake (PoS).

Growth Potential: Backed by Mysten Labs and strong VC interest, Sui is poised to make waves in gaming, social media, and DeFi. 

9. Aptos (APT)

USP: A scalable and secure blockchain developed by former Diem (Libra) team members.

Consensus Mechanism: Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) Proof of Stake (PoS).

Growth Potential: Aptos’ strong backing from VCs and focus on developer adoption make it a promising blockchain for mainstream use.

10. Stellar (XLM)

USP: Focused on cross-border payments and financial inclusion.

Consensus Mechanism: Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP).

Growth Potential: Stellar’s partnerships with major financial institutions and governments make it a key player in the payments space.

11. Chainlink (LINK)

USP: A decentralized oracle network enabling smart contracts to interact with real-world data.

Consensus Mechanism: Off-chain Consensus.

Growth Potential: Chainlink’s expanding use cases in DeFi, insurance, and gaming make it an essential component of the blockchain ecosystem.

Conclusion

The blockchain landscape is rich with innovation, and each network brings something unique to the table. From Ethereum’s dominance in smart contracts to Solana’s speed and Avalanche’s interoperability, the future of blockchain is bright. As a researcher, I’m excited to see how these networks evolve and contribute to the decentralized future. However, it’s important to remember that the space is highly dynamic, and success depends on factors like adoption, regulatory clarity, and technological advancements. Stay curious, keep researching, and always DYOR (Do Your Own Research)!

Here’s a breakdown of these three languages based on their Design Philosophy, Security, Performance & Efficiency, and Ecosystem & Tooling.

1. Design Philosophy

Solidity:

Solidity is purpose-built for the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), prioritizing simplicity and accessibility. Inspired by JavaScript and Python, it aims to make blockchain development approachable, especially for developers transitioning from web development. Its design focuses on smart contract execution and token interactions, making it the backbone of DeFi and NFTs.

Move:

Move, initially developed by Facebook for the Diem blockchain, emphasizes resource-oriented programming. It treats assets like first-class citizens, ensuring their integrity through linear types. This philosophy eliminates the risk of accidental duplication or loss of assets, making Move ideal for financial applications.

Rust:

Rust is a general-purpose systems programming language with a focus on memory safety and concurrency. Unlike Solidity or Move, Rust was not designed solely for blockchain development but has been adapted due to its robust safety guarantees and high performance, aligning well with blockchains like Solana.

2. Security

Solidity:

Security is a critical concern in Solidity, given its dominance in handling significant financial transactions. While it has evolved with features like reentrancy guards and SafeMath, its mutable state and susceptibility to developer errors (e.g., unchecked arithmetic) have led to high-profile exploits.

Move:

Move’s resource-oriented model inherently minimizes security risks by preventing the duplication or destruction of assets. Its type system ensures strong guarantees, making it less prone to common pitfalls like reentrancy attacks. This makes Move a secure choice for asset-centric applications.

Rust:

Rust’s borrow-checker ensures memory safety by design, preventing issues like null pointer dereferencing or data races. For blockchain use, this means smart contracts or blockchain nodes written in Rust are less likely to suffer from low-level vulnerabilities. However, Rust’s complexity can introduce human errors during development.

3. Performance & Efficiency

Solidity:

Solidity is optimized for the EVM, but its performance is constrained by the underlying blockchain’s architecture. Gas fees act as a bottleneck, requiring developers to write highly optimized code. While efficient, its performance is inherently tied to Ethereum’s scalability solutions.

Move:

Move provides excellent runtime efficiency due to its resource model and lightweight execution environment. Its focus on modularity and resource management translates to faster transaction processing and lower costs, particularly on modern blockchains like Aptos and Sui.

Rust:

Rust excels in performance due to its low-level capabilities, allowing fine-grained control over memory and CPU usage. This makes it a natural fit for high-throughput blockchains like Solana, where speed and efficiency are paramount. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve for developers.

4. Ecosystem & Tooling

Solidity:

Solidity boasts the most mature ecosystem among the three, with robust tooling like Truffle, Hardhat, and Remix. It has extensive community support and documentation, making it easier for newcomers to get started. The Ethereum ecosystem’s size ensures continued innovation and tooling upgrades.

Move:

Move’s ecosystem is still emerging, but platforms like Aptos and Sui are investing heavily in developer tools and resources. The Move Prover, a formal verification tool, stands out as a significant advantage for ensuring contract correctness. However, the community is smaller compared to Solidity.

Rust:

Rust’s ecosystem is vast and extends far beyond blockchain. For blockchain-specific tooling, frameworks like Anchor for Solana simplify development. However, Rust’s general-purpose nature means developers often rely on a combination of generic tools and blockchain-specific libraries, making onboarding slightly more challenging.

Conclusion

Each of these languages brings unique strengths to blockchain development:

Solidity remains the go-to choice for Ethereum and its derivatives, ideal for developers seeking a mature ecosystem and extensive community support.

Move stands out for its resource-oriented paradigm, offering unparalleled security for asset management in next-gen blockchains.

Rust is unmatched in performance and safety, making it indispensable for high-performance blockchain systems.

As the blockchain landscape evolves, the choice of language will depend on project requirements. For developers and organizations, understanding these nuances can be the key to unlocking the full potential of blockchain technology.

As a technology enthusiast and a staunch advocate for blockchain adoption, my participation in the India Blockchain Week Conference 2024 was a memorable experience filled with thought-provoking conversations, insightful discussions, and inspiring encounters.

I had the privilege of engaging with some of the most influential personalities shaping the blockchain and Web3 ecosystem. From attending panels to networking sessions, here’s a glimpse of the connections I made and the discussions I had:

Key Connections and Discussions

Dilip Chenoy – Chairman, Bharat Web3 Association

At the Unfold2024 Event, I met Mr. Dilip Chenoy, a seasoned leader in the Web3 space. Our discussion revolved around the role of education and community-building in fostering blockchain adoption in India. I shared insights about my community initiative, CampusToCrypto, and how we aim to bridge the gap between Web3 technology and grassroots developers.

Devika Mittal – Regional Head, Ava Labs

During the Avalanche Meetup, I connected with Ms. Devika Mittal. We exchanged ideas about Avalanche’s scalability and developer-friendly infrastructure, emphasizing its potential in gaming NFT marketplaces. As someone deeply involved in the gaming tech stack, I highlighted my work with Unity and Unreal Engine and explored how Avalanche can revolutionize gaming dApps.

Pritam Dutta – Founder, Zoth

Mr. Pritam Dutta’s journey with Zoth stood out as an inspiration. We discussed the intersection of blockchain and AI, focusing on the opportunities for decentralized solutions in education. I drew parallels with my leadership at the EdTech and SkillTech Research Center, emphasizing the importance of skill-based blockchain applications.

Sumit Gupta – CoinDCX

Meeting Mr. Sumit Gupta, the visionary behind CoinDCX, was a highlight of the conference. Our conversation centered around fostering crypto literacy in India. We brainstormed ideas on integrating crypto-based learning modules into CampusToCrypto and the importance of creating trust in the Web3 ecosystem.

Sunil Aggarwal – Author of “Bitcoin Magnet”

As an admirer of his work, I was thrilled to meet Mr. Sunil Aggarwal. We discussed his book and the philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin. The dialogue veered toward India’s regulatory challenges and how educational institutions can play a role in shaping policy narratives around blockchain.

Avery Ching – Co-founder & CTO, APTOS

Meeting Mr. Avery Ching was a remarkable experience. Known for APTOS’ groundbreaking technology, we discussed the Move programming language and its applicability to gaming ecosystems. Given my Unity expertise, we brainstormed how to onboard game developers to leverage APTOS’ secure and scalable infrastructure.

Joshua Tobkin – Co-Founder & CEO, Supra

Supra’s work on interoperable oracles has always intrigued me. Connecting with Mr. Tobkin was a great opportunity to discuss cross-chain data solutions. I shared my interest in creating blockchain-powered solutions for EdTech certifications, which align well with Supra’s capabilities.

Alex – CMO, Fluence

Fluence’s decentralized cloud solutions opened up fascinating avenues for discussion. Alex and I explored its implications for distributed game servers and secure content delivery, a critical challenge for multiplayer game developers

Proud to share that 50 of our Centurion University students & CampusToCrypto Community members have joined in IBW2024. We are the first Univeristy to have a Stall in IBW conference.

Key Takeaways

• Collaboration Across Ecosystems: The conference underscored the importance of collaboration between technologists, educators, and policymakers to scale blockchain adoption.

• Gaming as a Web3 Gateway: With my background in game development, I see gaming as a powerful entry point for users into the Web3 world.

• Educating the Masses: From technical workshops to accessible YouTube content, spreading blockchain literacy is a shared responsibility.

• Interoperability is Key: Cross-chain solutions, as highlighted by Supra and Fluence, are pivotal for the future of decentralized applications.

Next Steps

I returned from the conference inspired to further strengthen CampusToCrypto by collaborating with some of these incredible minds. Whether through partnerships or content co-creation, the goal remains the same: empowering communities to embrace Web3 with confidence and creativity.

What is FAB?

FAB is a next-generation marketplace for creators, offering assets such as 3D models, animations, sounds, textures, and much more. It unifies the best elements of popular marketplaces like the Unreal Engine Marketplace, Quixel, Sketchfab, and ArtStation. This consolidation means that creators now have one centralized platform to source and distribute content, making it easier to find the right assets for any project.

Key Features of FAB

1. One-Stop Shop: FAB combines multiple asset stores into one platform, eliminating the need to search across different sites for assets. Developers using Unreal Engine, and even those from other platforms, can benefit from this consolidated offering.

2. High-Quality Assets: From photorealistic environments to stylized characters, FAB offers assets with professional-grade quality. Epic Games’ acquisition of Quixel and Sketchfab has made this possible by integrating their vast libraries into FAB.

3. Cross-Platform Compatibility: While the marketplace is optimized for Unreal Engine, assets from FAB can be used across multiple game engines, including Unity and proprietary platforms, making it versatile for creators.

4. Monetization for Creators: FAB provides opportunities for asset creators to sell their work. With Epic Games’ reputation for favorable revenue-sharing models (like the 88/12 split in the Unreal Engine Marketplace), creators are likely to see competitive terms in FAB as well.

5. Community-Driven: FAB has a strong focus on community, encouraging collaboration and the sharing of resources. Creators can upload their own assets for sale or free distribution, fostering a vibrant ecosystem of developers helping each other.

Why FAB is a Game Changer

For developers, especially those working in Unreal Engine, FAB offers unprecedented access to a vast array of assets, cutting down on production time and enhancing creative possibilities. The marketplace is designed to support both beginners and experienced developers, with assets ranging from basic tutorials and tools to advanced shaders and animations.

Moreover, the integration of Quixel’s Megascans into FAB means that photorealism is more accessible than ever before. This is particularly useful for creators working on virtual reality projects, architectural visualization, and AAA games where top-tier quality is paramount.

Conclusion

With the launch of FAB, Epic Games continues to solidify its commitment to democratizing game development and empowering creators. Whether you’re a solo indie developer or part of a large studio, FAB promises to be a crucial resource in your development toolkit. The streamlined experience of finding, using, and sharing assets through FAB is set to accelerate the creative process and elevate the quality of digital projects across the board.

Stay tuned as FAB continues to evolve, offering even more tools and resources for creators worldwide.

From 80+ nationwide groups, we ware the semi-finalists with 14 more groups.

It gives me a huge pleasure to share that, We have won the 2nd prize among 11 finalist groups. The topic of the competition was "Reduce Inequality in Society". So, we have developed a Virtual Reality game named as "Towards the Change" in 24 hrs only. 

We received the reward of the competition from the Honorable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Shree N. Chandrababu Naidu at Tech2018.

Debasish Mohanty and Raj Aryan Sony assisted me with incredibly hard work. Without them, It really could not be possible.

It's also an achievement of them who supported me to move forward. Thank you.

#Tech2018 #unity3d, #hackathonGamesForLearning 

I've been learning to code for about three months now. HTML, a little CSS, and I just started JavaScript. Everyone online keeps saying "just put your projects on GitHub!" — so here I am.

Except... I don't really understand what a repository is yet. I clicked "New repository" and it asked me a bunch of questions I didn't know the answers to. Public or private? Initialize with a README? Add a .gitignore? I just clicked things and hoped for the best.