Whichever is easier for you to confidently and consistently pronounce.

I see every project as a way to grow in some way. I hope to achieve successful outcomes while executing them, but I generally tend to pre-select certain kinda of projects over others.

Themes:

• Transplantation: I’m fascinated by the transplantation of patterns—taking what works in one context and reimagining it somewhere unexpected.

• Connection: The human need to connect endures even as the tools we use to acieve this goal become increasingly complex, isolting and fractured. I like exploring how timeless models of connection: language, myth, cultural history and storytelling tie into modern modes of connectivity.

• Paradoxical or non-representational tools: Non-representational work (stuff that looks like one thing but actually is another) delights me deeply because it considers the constraints of the medium in which it operates and suberts them creatively. Similarly, I also have a soft spot for paradoxes, mysteries and puzzles.

Execution and research: My engineering background pulls me toward the how: implementation, design, breaking down a problem—or inventing one (which, let’s be honest, is the real challenge).

Here’s a non-exhaustive, ever-evolving list of the kinds of ideas I love working on. If something here resonates, I’d love to hear from you:

• Bio-mimetic solutions: Taking insights from nature and scaling them into unexpected domains. Evolution has already solved many problems beyond the scope of human cognition or comprehension, and exploring how nature has created its own solutions is fascinating.

• Patterns in stories: Tracing the origins of cultural narratives, digging into Jungian psychology, and connecting stories to the shared human subconscious. Why do we keep telling the same ones? And whose stories are still missing?

• Cross-discipline mashups: I’m all about stitching together ideas from wildly different fields—collages, hybrids, parodies, and the beautiful chaos of unexpected connections.

• Inventing problems: Everyone’s out here solving problems, but creating them id where the real fun lies. If you’re scheming up a puzzle, a mystery, or a mind-bending exercise, let’s collaborate.

• Satire (on occasion): My satire comes from trying to make sense of the absurd, with a focus on punching up as often as I can. The targets are commonly the ivory towers of academia, tech and sometimes tech-fueled hubris. But satire burns hot, so I try not to overdo it.

This list is anything but final. Please reach out if something on this list looks like a cool collaboration. For projects I don’t like to work on, please the next question.

The following is a (non-comprehensive) list of project types I prefer not to work on.

• Self-help content / life advice: I’m not interested in telling people how to live their lives. Success is ambiguous, messy, and often built on an unrepeatable combination of hard work, luck, and privilege. While I sometimes share resources or ways of working, what works for me might not work for you—and that’s okay.

• Bland copywriting: I enjoy conceptualizing brands as social identities and crafting copy with a specific tone or personality. But if your goal is simply “text that converts” or “Click here to buy thing,” I’m not your person.

• Get-rich-quick schemes, growth marketing, or “how to make money” content : Absolutely not. I’m happy to be compensated for my work, but this overlaps too much with self-help. And frankly, it’s exhausting.

• “Make this funny” : Humor is nuanced—dark, slapstick, intellectual, sarcastic, pun-heavy. I can craft humor tailored to a specific taste, but I need more direction than “just make it funny.” I also draw a hard line at humor that punches down, ridicules trauma, or targets someone’s body, identity, or marginalization.

• Exclusively utilitarian projects: Work that exists purely to maximize efficiency, productivity, or profit at the expense of creativity or humanity isn’t for me. If the goal is solving problems for the sake of optimization alone—without any spark of innovation or artistry—I’ll pass.

• Emotionally hollow work: Projects that feel purely transactional or devoid of meaning or are superficial are a waste of creative energy—for both of us.

• Rigid briefs: I thrive on projects that challenge assumptions and leave room for curiosity and exploration. If the brief is so rigid that it leaves no space for interpretation or creativity, it’s a no from me.

• Overly cynical or anger-driven satire: While I enjoy crafting satire that punches up, leaning too heavily into cynicism or rage can be draining. If it’s only about tearing something down without offering insight, it’s not the kind of work I want to do.

This list isn’t exhaustive, nor is it set in stone. I’m open to ideas that surprise or challenge me—but if your project falls squarely within one of these categories, we’re probably not a match.

As respectfully as I can, I try to show up to places (both on the internet and in the real world) where I’m not expected. I’ve found that curious well-behaved guests are generally welcome and encouraged.

An incomplete list of definitions, depending on who’s asking:

• For the bio section of journals, podcasts, and magazines:
  “Piyali is an Indian immigrant in New York, trying to evoke anything besides humor. By day, she works in AI research, specializing in clustering models and neural networks. By night, she moonlights as a writer, comedian, producer, and actor. Since 2020, she has channeled her performance skills into writing satire, fueled (unfortunately) by the insufferable hubris of tech culture. Her interests include linguistics, mythography, non-representational objects, and marveling at the audacity of people who open emails with ‘I hope this email finds you well.’”

• For my friends and people who love me:
  “Mischief, joy, and occasional chaos. A good friend and a jolly good time.”

• For my parents:
  “The best daughter we’ve ever had.” (Citation needed)

• For myself:
  “A work in progress.”