Capital & Commerce

From Idea to Impact: Building Crusader Connect 

(A Project from Crusader Capitalists)

Crusader Connect did not begin with a master plan or a perfectly defined product. It began with a simple question: “How can student life be a little more connected, organized, and human?” That simple question became the lens for every technical and design decision behind the app. 

The original idea was formed during a conversation with my close friend Tate Nanda. Sitting on the dock at my lake house, I told him how much I enjoyed working with numbers and technology. We were discussing how disconnected the student body was in general, to which I replied that I wanted to connect the student body instead of leaving information scattered across multiple platforms. He told me, “You’re the tech bro; if anyone could figure it out, you can.” That short line turned a vague idea into a responsibility. From then on, Crusader Connect stopped being hypothetical and became a project that I felt compelled to pursue. 

Building Crusader Connect meant learning how real software systems are designed and maintained. I worked with Apple’s developer ecosystem using Xcode to manage native app development. To take a step back, when I was exposed to the program, Cursor for the first time, I was blown away. The concept of simply putting prompts into an AI chatbot and getting thousands of lines of perfect code in mere seconds was surreal. Cursor became my primary coding environment, which forced me to structure a real codebase across multiple files rather than working on isolated scripts. I used Python to handle some data organization and features, such as clubs and resources. APIs enabled the app to dynamically pull and organize information, teaching me how modern applications communicate across systems. For authentication and storage, I implemented Firebase, which enabled Google login and persistent storage of user data. The technical learning curve was definitely steep. At one point, while using AI tools inside Cursor, my files were dumped, and large portions of my project were gone. Features broke, builds failed, and weeks of progress were lost. This forced me to learn version control and use GitHub as a backup system. That moment reframed how I thought of computing: progress beats perfection. Software development is not about writing flawless code on the first attempt. It is about iteration, debugging, and building resilience into both the systems and my own character. 

The features of Crusader Connect were designed with purpose rather than novelty. The whole idea of Crusader Connect rested on the shoulders of giving students all of their necessities into one simple resource. For instance, the lunch schedule was added to simplify daily planning, the athletic calendar is there so students can show up for each other, the club view lowers the barrier to involvement, and academic resources reduce friction between devices so students are not scrambling for materials. Even the games section, including a Wordle feature using Notre Dame and faith-based words, exists to bring personality and joy into the experience. 

This project also reshaped my understanding of collaboration in computing. I worked with my mentor Brian Huang, an MIT graduate and the developer, founder, and shareholder of the now international crypto company, Glider. He pushed me to think beyond short-term fixes and toward scalable, maintainable systems. I collaborated with my business club Crusader Capitalists, club leaders, and peers to shape features based on real student needs. Building Crusader Connect reinforced that computer science is very difficult to do solo. It is collaborating with different individuals that blends technical skill, user feedback, leadership, and vision. 

Crusader Connect reflects a broader culture of initiative and ambition at Notre Dame High School. Students here are encouraged to build real things rather than just discuss ideas. When I first arrived at Notre Dame, I remember thinking that we were one of the schools that paved the way for the next generation, thinking ahead into the future. It made me irate when people would slander our school, saying that “there were no opportunities,” but they were the same individuals who would sit back and just complain and talk, not actually take action.  I wanted to reset the precedent to put Notre Dame back into the forefront of innovation, technology, and leadership. This mindset is also central to Crusader Capitalists, which focuses on turning ideas into action. Business and computer science intersect through leadership and the willingness to take risks. Building this app taught me that you do not become “ready” before you start, but rather become ready by starting. 

Crusader Connect did not start as an assignment. It started as a belief that students could build something meaningful if they were willing to try, fail, debug, and build again. This project changed how I see computer science. It is no longer just code. It is a way to serve people, connect communities, and turn ideas into systems that actually matter.

The Strategic Dilemma: Navigating US-China Competition in the New Tech Era 

Gavin Meier

Over the past two decades, China has transformed from a low-cost manufacturing hub into a major technological and industrial competitor to the United States. American companies now face a strategic dilemma: competing with Chinese firms that can drive innovation and efficiency, but it also raises concerns about national security, supply chain resilience, and intellectual property. The question is no longer whether China is a competitor, but whether that competition strengthens American innovation or undermines it, and whether US corporations should prioritize global profits over national security. 

Recent developments in artificial intelligence highlight how competition with China can act as a wake-up call for American innovators. China's rapid advances in AI, including breakthroughs from firms such as DeepSeek, have been described as a "Sputnik 2.0," a signal that US technological leadership can no longer be taken for granted. Just as the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the United States jolted into investing heavily in engineering and science. China's growing capabilities under President Xi Jinping have pressured American companies and policymakers to accelerate investment in research, talent, and infrastructure. In this sense, competition can be healthy as it forces complacent systems to improve.

Simultaneously, competition with China does not operate on a level playing field. Chinese technology firms benefit from extensive state support, protected domestic markets, and strategic industrial policy. These conditions complicate traditional free-market competition and raise concerns about intellectual property and long-term dependence on foreign supply chains. This has led to a renewed push in the United States to rethink trade policy and industrial strategy. Under President Trump, tariffs were not used only as leverage in trade negotiations, but also as a tool to incentivize domestic manufacturing and reindustrialization. While tariffs raise costs in the short-term, supporters argue that they can encourage companies to reshore production and rebuild critical industrial capacity over time. 

In terms of national security, it is especially clear in strategic industries such as semiconductors, advanced AI systems, and defense related technologies. US companies such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google sit at the center of global innovation, but their success also creates strategic assets that shape national power. In these sectors, the pursuit of global profits through foreign partnerships or offshoring can conflict with long-term security interests. Dependence on rival nations for core technologies exposes supply chains to geopolitical risk and limits national autonomy. As a result, the United States policy has increasingly emphasized domestic production, government-industry partnerships, and restrictions on technology transfer in sensitive areas. 

Ultimately, competition with China is neither purely good nor purely bad for American innovation. When competition is fair and reciprocal, it can accelerate progress and sharpen technological leadership. When it is distorted by state power and strategic rivalry, it can undermine incentives and create long-term vulnerabilities. The challenge for American companies is to balance global competitiveness with national responsibility. In critical technologies, prioritizing resilience and security may reduce short-term profits but strengthen long-term innovation and strategic independence. In a world where technology and geopolitics are inseparable, the smartest business strategy is not choosing between profit and security, but rather recognizing that sustained innovation depends on both.

Engineering as Power: How R&D Becomes Economic and Strategic Advantage 

Brendan O'Brien

The modern engineering business sits at the intersection of advanced research, national strategy, and high-stakes capital investment. Companies like Lockheed Martin and SpaceX illustrate two distinct but equally powerful models of engineering-driven growth. Lockheed Martin represents the traditional defense-industrial model: long development cycles, cost-plus government contracts, and a focus on reliability in mission-critical systems such as fighter jets, missile defense platforms, and space systems. Its flagship program, the F-35 Lightning II, demonstrates how engineering excellence, supply chain coordination, and government partnerships can create massive, multi-decade revenue streams. In this model, engineering is not just product development; it is risk management, systems integration, and regulatory mastery on a global scale.

By contrast, SpaceX has reshaped the engineering business model through vertical integration, rapid prototyping, and aggressive cost reduction. Rather than relying solely on traditional aerospace contracting structures, the company designs, manufactures, and tests most components in-house, allowing for tighter control over innovation cycles. Its reusable rocket system, the Falcon 9, dramatically reduced launch costs and disrupted legacy aerospace economics. The broader engineering lesson is clear: competitive advantage comes from technical differentiation paired with operational efficiency. Whether through government-aligned scale like Lockheed Martin or disruptive iteration like SpaceX, successful engineering firms convert complex technical capability into sustainable economic power.

Modern technological R&D does not only advance the specific industries in which companies operate. Research conducted by organizations such as NASA, for example, benefits far more than space exploration. Data, tools, and technologies developed for space missions often transfer into agriculture, meteorology, materials science, and entrepreneurship. Satellite data informs climate and weather modeling, which supports farmers and disaster-response planning, while engineering advances in sensors, materials, and computing create spillover benefits across multiple industries. In this way, investment in advanced engineering research generates broad societal and economic returns beyond the original mission.

Technological R&D in biomedical engineering operates at the intersection of engineering design, clinical science, and regulatory strategy. Companies such as Medtronic and Boston Scientific invest heavily in long-term research pipelines that combine materials science, electronics, software, and human physiology. Unlike traditional technology sectors, biomedical R&D must progress through structured preclinical testing, clinical trials, and regulatory approval pathways before commercialization. Implantable devices such as pacemakers or neurostimulators, for example, require advances in battery miniaturization, biocompatible materials, wireless telemetry, and embedded software reliability. Engineering teams must design products that function reliably inside the human body for years while meeting strict regulatory standards from agencies such as the FDA. As a result, R&D spending in biomedical engineering is not only about invention, but also about validation, documentation, and long-term risk management.

Adapt to Survive: How Human-AI Teamwork Will Define 2030

Matthew Keough

Artificial intelligence is nearing the point where it creates more jobs than it displaces by driving changes that enhance human work rather than replace it, leading to a positive jobs gap by 2030. Although AI will automate routine tasks, such as data entry, simple customer service, and basic analysis, it also creates new jobs in AI engineering, data science, and prompt engineering. The lessons of the past indicate that technological transformations, such as the present AI boom, will ultimately lead to economic expansion and increased productivity, allowing for new industries to emerge.

Nonetheless, the process is expected to be highly disruptive in the short term, requiring a change in the skill set of the workforce rather than simply eliminating jobs. The future of work in the age of AI will be based on human-AI collaboration, where humans concentrate on high-level, creative, and social skills and leave the routine, technical work to AI. Thus, while the total number of jobs may rise, success will depend on the ability to adapt and train for the new jobs created.

Entertainment on the Business Level

Ana Vitoria Barberino Pinto

The entertainment business covers movies, streaming, and the music industry, but it also includes merchandise from actors and singers, brand collaborations, and TV show promotions. Studios and artists don’t just make money from tickets or streams — they also profit from partnerships with major brands. For example, Stranger Things collaborated with Doritos to create themed products and campaigns. Singer Sabrina Carpenter partnered with Pringles for a special promotion. The Netflix series Bridgerton also teamed up with Google for interactive promotions. These collaborations help brands reach younger audiences while giving shows and artists more visibility and profit.