On January 6, 2019 Georgia Tech opened up Crosland Tower, also known as Library East, after a two-year renovation. The renovation was part of the Price Gilbert Library Renewal Project, also called Library Next.

Crosland Tower will serve as the campus library until 2020, at which point both Crosland and the Price Gilbert library, also called Library West, will both be opened for use together.

Meanwhile, the new opening has garnered a lot of interest from students across campus, who have flocked to visit it due to its novelty. The Technique asked a few students about their views on the look and function of the newly opened library.

Some people appreciated the change in aesthetics of Crosland Tower in comparison to the Price Gilbert library.

“The entire building seems like a fresh breath of air for us students,” said Justin Wurst, first-year CS. “The seven-story tall building really allows Tech students to appreciate the Atlanta skyline from just within their campus.”

The increased student capacity of Crosland Tower in comparison to the previous Price Gilbert library has been a sign of relief for a few students. This is true for students like Ishrat Arora, third-year ME.

“One of the best benefits of this building is that it now prevents the overcrowding of CULC during midterm or finals season, affording all of us a quiet place to study,” Arora said. During peak study times, many students find that the CULC can be too noisy or crowded to accommodate their needs.

However, some students believe that at the moment, the new library feels a bit too rushed and unfinished. “The floor plan choice for some of the floors feels a bit weird and disconnected,” said Rohit Ramachandran, first-year IE. “It felt like [it] looked like two rooms joined together, almost like a quad dorm room.”

Some students also feel that after the initial novelty of the library eventually wears off, they will find that it does not provide a drastic improvement compared to the previous library.

“Even though it’s open right now, the building feels unfinished, with most amenities unavailable and even some technical glitches like an ‘up’ button at the elevator on the highest floor,” said Tony Kim, first-year CS. “However, the building shows some promise and I hope that Georgia Tech continues to make subsequent improvements to this building.”

The library does seem to have gained an upgrade in terms of energy efficiency, according to the architecture firm conducting these building renewals, Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell (BNIM). After the complete renovation, the population using both buildings will have nearly doubled — the 1,250 seats currently available will grow to 2,360 — yet the buildings’ total energy consumption will be reduced by about a third. The energy consumption per capita will be 80 percent less than what it is currently.

So far, it seems that the fresh design, ample quiet space and rooftop terrace of Library East will provide students with an appealing space to study and learn. Based on these opinions, it seems that many students believe the Georgia Tech Library has a bright future.

Almost immediately after their matchup against the University of Minnesota in the everything-but-prestigious Quick Lane Bowl was announced, Tech players jumped onto social media to air their disappointment. “I’m baffled at this bowl game,” declared quarterback TaQuon Marshall. “No respect,” complained safety Tariq Carpenter. “Feels like a slap in the face,” added offensive lineman Scott Morgan for good measure.

Baffling, disrespectful, a slap in the face — all of those words  did apply after the game was over, but for a very different reason. The Jackets were shellacked 34-10 at the hands of the Golden Gophers, who had squeaked into bowl eligibility as the result of a rare win over rival Wisconsin.

The Gophers looked hungry, prepared to run the ball and stop the triple option in perhaps the last time the Jackets would ever run it. The Jackets looked like a team that was unhappy to be playing against a 6-6 team in a sparsely attended game in Detroit the day after Christmas. What should have been a warm, fond send-off for Coach Paul Johnson was instead a nightmarish slog. And perhaps more disappointing than the outcome was the reason Tech lost — the team was just outmanned by the Golden Gophers. Minnesota’s offensive line was stronger, its defensive line nastier and its running backs more resistant to contact. Minnesota played the style of football that Tech had made its calling card for more than a decade under Johnson.

Though its ending was unceremonious, it is now time for us to move past the Paul Johnson era. Tech’s offense will look very different under new offensive coordinator Dave Patenaude, who runs the sort of spread offense that has become popular across the country, even making its way into NFL playbooks. Certainly, fans hope that the defense looks different too; it was consistently the team’s Achilles’ heel under Johnson, and Collins, a defensively minded coach, has a shot to turn that around.

Go on an online message board and you’ll find three types of Tech fans. The first camp remains fiercely loyal to Johnson, and predicts doom and gloom for the program now that it moves away from the triple option attack that made it so formidable for years. In the eyes of these fans, Tech has just lost its strongest asset.

The second camp is jubilant about Johnson’s retirement and the hire of Geoff Collins, who has emphasized recruiting at each of his previous stops. These fans see in Collins the chance for Tech football to gain the sort of curb appeal necessary to sway elite high school recruits away from the myriad powerhouse programs in Tech’s backyard.

The third camp, the one I call home, is cautiously optimistic. The transition from Johnson to Collins will not be easy — although a great deal of credit is due to Johnson’s staff for continuing to work on the recruiting trail even after his retirement was announced. It is clear that the new offense and defense will prioritize new skills and players. And though that may be messy, expect excitement.

The face of Tech football for more than a decade, head coach Paul Johnson announced his retirement on November 28. He is the godfather of the modern triple-option style offense, almost single-handedly keeping the scheme alive through his coaching and the work of his former proteges. In his career at Tech he took the team to an 82-60 mark — not including an expunged ACC Championship game win — along with a 3-6 bowl-game record.

Johnson’s legacy in terms of outlook across all of college football is obvious; no coach has done more to keep alive the ancient art of the flex bone. Since his first tenure as a head coach at Georgia Southern — where Johnson led the Eagles to two national championships in five years — many of Johnson’s coaching assistants have gone on to implement their own triple option styles at other schools. The style is a hallmark of any U.S. service academy, and the puppet master behind nearly every program that runs the scheme is likely a graduate of the Johnson School of Running the Ball.

But Johnson’s legacy at Tech is far more complex. Johnson performed surprisingly well in his first two years as head coach at Tech, going 19-7 and picking up the aforementioned ACC Championship, but Johnson lost four straight bowl games to begin his tenure. Still, Johnson was nothing if not consistent as the Jackets reached bowl eligibility for seven straight seasons from 2008 to 2014, culminating with arguably the greatest Tech football team since the 1990 team that captured the national championship.

The hangover of Tech’s 2014 Orange Bowl victory persisted through the 2015 season, however, as Tech went 3-9 and completely missed out on the postseason. Despite a more-than-solid rebound in 2016, the memory of that 2015 season coupled with recent struggles caused fans’ patience to wear thin for the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Despite pressure from fans, Tech stuck by Johnson, offering him a contract extension in 2018 after Tech went 5-6 the previous season and narrowly missed the postseason. A year after signing that extension, seen by many as a signal of the administration’s faith in their coach, Johnson elected to walk away on his own terms.

In terms of success, on paper, Johnson appears as a capable coach and not much more. To be sure, reaching nine bowl games in eleven seasons is a feat in and of itself, but bowl game eligibility is expected of any self-respecting Power Five program — especially one with as storied a history as Tech’s, which includes names like ‘Heisman’ in its annals.

Yet, in context, Johnson’s legacy improves; given Tech’s low investment and low return on athletics, Johnson was able to accomplish quite a lot with quite little. Johnson’s triple option required no flashy, NFL-caliber recruits to succeed. That was a necessity, given Tech’s high academic standards that might dissuade athletes uninterested in taking calculus their freshman year from attending. Johnson’s triple option allowed Tech to find success without compromising academics — a very visible issue at other ACC programs — and without substantial investment in the program, a necessity for Tech’s cash-strapped athletics department.

But Johnson’s true legacy is far more important than shiny metal bowls, hugged and kissed only to then be locked away in glass cabinets until the end of time. It is far more important than scratches of a pencil on paper, recording another tally in the “victory” column for the Jackets. It is far more important than the number of graduates who have gone on to become NFL stars, receiving lavish paychecks and jet-setting across the country to play for rapturous applause from fanbases starving for championships.

Johnson’s true legacy is that of every player who has passed through his program. The responsibility of a college football coach is unique, as the players are still developing from teenagers into men and are not simply showing up to a job each day to earn a paycheck. Johnson is responsible not just for developing and mentoring these players in the realm of football, but in life. Every player that walks onstage to shake the president’s hand and receive a diploma is another success for Johnson and his staff, and Johnson has graduated plenty. For many disadvantaged athletes, football represents a chance at a better life, and as a coach, Johnson represented a facilitator of opportunity, serving admirably in this role.

That, more than win percentage or strength of schedule or redzone efficiency, will be the metric that defines Paul Johnson’s career years from now, particularly if he stays retired and never ventures onto the sideline of a college football stadium again. Students in the years to come may not know what a B-back is, why it matters that cut blocks are a perfectly legal and acceptable part of a football game or how Tech once won games against tough opponents while almost never passing the ball. May they remember, at the very least, the impact Paul Johnson had as a fervent advocate for and shining example of what Tech athletics can be.

In the past, Netflix’s original content has largely consisted of feature length films and shows which are released entire seasons at a time, creating a new media consumption pattern in which Netflix customers watch content in short bursts.

Netflix’s content has been so deeply associated with this binge-watching culture for so long that the way in which it is released has molded the types of topics that it covers. Shows on Netflix often feel engineered to be addictive, fluid and timeless, allowing viewers to move smoothly from episode to episode and ensuring that shows remain relevant for the forseeable future.

With Hasan Minhaj’s new show “Patriot Act,” however, Netflix seems determined to break this mold and enter the arena of topical content. Customers who are used to binging shows as soon as they come out will be disappointed to find that Minhaj’s new offering is to be released weekly, forcing fans to watch it while its content is still fresh and relevant.

The result of this new release pattern is that “Patriot Act” covers subjects which Netflix shows have shied away from in the past. Netflix comedies of the past have often made topical references to the modern culture and broad references to the current political climate, but none have ever attempted to address specific current events as they occur.

This style of comedy, pioneered by Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and less conventionally by Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “South Park,” makes light of politics and current affairs while also seeking to inform the viewer.

With the introduction of Stephen Colbert’s version of “The Late Show” and Seth Meyers’s version of “Late Night,” this comedy format has gained a huge share of the market. Naturally, Netflix wants to cash-in on this trend, and upon watching “Patriot Act” for the first time, it becomes obvious that Netflix is looking to emulate one of the most successful shows in the genre — HBO’s “Last Week Tonight.”

The Jon Oliver hosted series has differentiated itself from the pack by offering in-depth reporting on complicated issues that other political comedians rarely cover, and the creators of “Patriot Act” have clearly taken notice.

Much like Oliver’s show, “Patriot Act” centers around long segments focused on a single issue. The series premiere, “Saudi Arabia” dedicates nearly 20 minutes to a discussion of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in the context of the recent killing of journalist Jamal Kashoggi.

The show features a blend of in-depth reporting of facts and comedic analysis, highlighting key issues and often calling viewers and politicians to action while also making light of sometimes dark topics.

Each episode is written immaculately and researched thoroughly, and the result is a product which is informative, entertaining and, most importantly, absolutely hilarious.

Many of the segments also conclude with a satirical video which mocks a real clip shown during the segment, another idea taken from Oliver’s show.

The format is a fantastic recipe for entertaining and fulfilling comedy, even if it is largely a carbon copy of “Last Week Tonight.”

Additionally, there are some aspects of “Patriot Act” which are original. The set-design and tone of the show is unlike anything else in comedy television. Minhaj stands alone on a small stage backed by screens which display graphics related to whatever he is discussing. There is a medium sized studio audience and Minhaj frequently interacts with members of the crowd in the same way a stand-up comedian might light-heartedly mock his audience. The tone is set by dramatic, almost militaristic music which plays before and after segments, and the viewer gets the impression that Minhaj is a comedy gladiator, slaying topics for entertainment.

Minhaj’s task is no small one — episodes are intense and fast-moving, requiring Minhaj to keep up his pace while dishing out detailed information accurrately and mixing in ad-libbed jokes to keep the whole thing casual and funny. Still, Minhaj seems to feel at ease through all of it, diving into each segment with confidence.

In “Patriot Act,” Minhaj plays the role of a performer, going to trememdous lengths to please his audience and to get a laugh out of his viewers. In “Last Week Tonight,” Jon Oliver sits at a desk and occaisionally uses props to supplement his comedy, making him appear relaxed, whereas Minhaj seems to put himself out there for the enjoyment of others with every segment.

Still, the biggest difference between the shows stems from their distinct target audiences. The creators of “Patriot Act” seem to be aware that the target Netflix streamer is much younger than the typical HBO viewer, and the youth of the show’s target audience is reflected in the writing and presentation of the show.

Minhaj wears sweaters and jeans with sneakers, not  suit and tie. He frequently speaks about staying “woke.” There is even talk of vaping and hookah.

If “Last Week Tonight” is where millenials go to get their news and laughs, “Patriot Act” wants to be where Generation Z goes to get woke without having to watch the news.

Normally critics look for shows that are fresh and original, but in this case, Minhaj’s efforts at recreating Jon Oliver’s style is a welcome development. “Last Week Tonight” has long been one of the best shows on television, and if “Patriot Act” means that more shows will take Oliver’s lead and offer in-depth reporting with a comedic twist, viewers  can only benefit.

“Patriot Act” has carved out its own niche in the comedy landscape, and even if it relies on a borrowed format, it is just unique enough and plenty funny enough to thrive.

Viewers of all ages should give the show a chance, and if they can handle waiting a full week at a time for new episodes to be released, they will surely not be disappointed.

PrizePicks is the newest kid on the block in fantasy football ­— and fantasy soccer, baseball and hockey. Fresh out of Atlanta Tech Village, this startup prides itself as the simplest form of fantasy. PrizePicks found its footing in January of 2018, and launched their mobile game app on Thursday Oct. 23. Their app, built with the help of Tech alums, can be found on Apple’s app store.

The PrizePicks mobile app and website allow users to place an entry in any of six athletic leagues — like Major League Baseball, the National Football League and others — in a matter of minutes. In comparison to other fantasy games, PrizePicks gives an instant payout to a winner immediately after the game.

A player can place an entry by choosing two, three or four athletes to bet on the basis of their performance. Players must select an “Over” or “Under” option on each player based on a predetermined house score that predicts how well they will play. If all selections are correct, the player wins.

Players can also view calculations behind the projection for each athlete. Entry amounts vary from between 10 to 100 dollars, and winnings are based on the number of picks initially chosen; two picks pays two and a half times the initial bet, three picks pays five times and four picks pays 10 times. Every selection must be correct for a player to get a payout.

PrizePicks has faced some critics, who are skeptical of a real-money game that has materialized so quickly.  Other fantasy games exist like DraftKings, but an in-app payment is unique.

PrizePicks categorizes their game as a skill-based bet because players are choosing combinations of outcomes instead of just one — therefore, it isn’t a straight-cut sports betting game.

PrizePicks has timed their release with precision, aiming to take advantage of the virality of an app platform with an engaging real money game.

As users increase, it might simply be a matter of time before PrizePicks is acquired or competes with the rulers of the fantasy space, like FanDuel and
DraftKings.

Winning is possible and happens often. Fedor Klimov, Tech ECON alumnus and head of business analytics and revenue mentioned how consistent winners of the game have a reputation in the office as “sharks”. On any given game day, the house is worried about bleeding money.

Now, PrizePicks is focused on outreach and getting people to try the game. Viewing parties are held weekly at Big Sky Buckhead, and PrizePicks is looking to find their footing through their app.

Another former Tech student has been heavily involved in the progress and creation of the game. Jay Deuskar, chief technology officer, has been with the company since its conception with co-founder and UGA grad, Adam Wexler. Deuskar was a fourth year CS student when he dropped out to focus all his attention on the company. The game features a user interface designed by Deuskar.

“With the launch of PrizePicks on mobile, we’re providing tens of millions of domestic fantasy players with an easy way to raise the stakes,” said Wexler, chief executive officer of PrizePicks. “Sports fans everywhere can now conveniently submit their daily picks right from their smartphone — which research shows is where most [daily fantasy sports] fans spend their time.”

The PrizePicks team has been working on further optimizing their system for about a year. Their app has seen two or three version updates. As of now, PrizePicks uses a direct deposit system and the first five-dollar entry for new users is free.

It is not every day that you win a scholarship, let alone a $10,000 scholarship that is presented to you by a former astronaut. However, for three Tech students, this was the case. The three were honored during an award ceremony held Nov. 7th, in the Bill Moore Student Success Center, and were presented with pins as well as glowing remarks by former astronaut, Michael McCulley.

The ceremony began with opening remarks by Dr. Lakshmi Sankar, a professor in the School of Aerospace Engineering and member of the scholarship selection board. He spoke of McCulley’s distinguished career.

McCulley, whose career began as an enlisted Naval Submariner, has been a part of the aerospace community since he began flying for the Navy after his graduation from Purdue University.

McCulley presented the award on behalf of the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, whose mission is to support the retention of talented individuals dedicated to innovation in STEM fields.

For McCulley, the foundation is a great way to pay forward all of the opportunities and good fortune that he was afforded.

“Every astronaut I’ve ever known feels incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to do what so many want to do,” McCulley said. “I think there are 500 of us who have flown in space, so we are all so grateful for the
opportunity.

“Many of us have this opportunity to contribute back in such a profound way and that idea of giving back, that you repay, is why I do this.”

For the scholarship recipients, this generosity and faith in the next generation has not gone unnoticed.

The recipients, fourth year ME Emily Kamienski, fourth year BCHM Sophia Guldberg and third year BME Julia Wood all expressed their gratitude, emphasizing that their standalone achievements were only a small piece of the puzzle and that without help they would not have accomplished what they have.

“I’d like to thank the Astronaut Scholarship foundation for awarding me this scholarship, but there are also several others who have assisted me in this process,” said Kamienski. “This scholarship is opening up an amazing network of talented individuals and the opportunity to be guided by those on paths which I would like to follow is amazing.”

Woodall shared this sentiment of thankfulness and excitement.

“I’m very thankful for those who have guided my research and helped me find my passion, and I’m excited to apply what I have learned in my biomechanics research to the network of research that this scholarship connects me to,” said Woodall.

This ability to be humble, coupled with the ability to be a hard-working member of a team is key to success according to McCulley.

As he shared with those in attendance, he believes that his ability to be a team player, to seek opportunity and to never give up are what have enabled him to be successful in achieving his dreams.

“I’ve seen all kinds of people, and if there’s a commonality among people like me it is a healthy respect for fear,” said McCulley. “The ability to manage risk and integrate tasks to achieve your desired outcome is key. Furthermore, it is about ‘we’ not ‘I.’ You have to put yourself aside and be part of the team if you’re going to find success.”

By presenting this award and taking the time to speak to those who wish to innovate and spark change through their work, McCulley hopes to inspire people to pursue and achieve their dreams.

However, this recognition is just part of what the scholarship aims to achieve.

As the sum of its parts, the foundation hopes to use the award as a means to inspire and empower the next generation of thinkers and doers; and, thereby, carry on the legacy of those trailblazers like Michael McCulley.

It may surprise some, but Tech is home to a diverse community of poetry lovers and poets themselves. Tucked away on the first floor of Skiles is the Poetry@Tech office, a hub of poetry activity on campus and in the local community.

“[Poetry@Tech] was created by two Georgia Tech alums who — independent of one another — had decided that a world-class university like Georgia Tech needed a world-class poetry program,” said Travis Denton, Poetry@Tech.

Those alumni were Bruce McEver and Henry C. Bourne. Both were introduced to poetry through humanities courses at Tech and wanted to provide future generations of students with the resources to engage with poetry in meaningful ways. To do so, they created endowments establishing the H. Bruce McEver Visiting Chair in Writing and the Margaret T. and Henry C. Bourne, Jr. Chair in Poetry.

“That began to define our mission: to bring poetry and poetry instruction to students, faculty and staff here at Georgia Tech,” Denton said. The program accomplishes this mission through classes, workshops, readings and community outreach.

Through the years, Poetry@Tech has added several distinguished poets to its ranks. Current director Ilya Kaminsky is a poet known for his award-winning book “Dancing in Odessa.”

“We’re amazingly glad to have him here. It’s amazing — he has absolutely mastered the music of poems and the sounds of poems,” said Denton of Kaminsky, who is legally deaf.

Poetry@Tech Founding director Thomas Lux, who passed away in 2017, was also a critically acclaimed poet. For Denton, Lux’s attitude about Poetry@Tech continues to ring true.

“People would come up to [Lux] and I and say Poetry@Tech seems to be an oxymoron, because it’s not the focus of the university — that has changed over the years,” Denton said. “Having poetry at Tech is not an oxymoron.

“The students here are incredibly creative in whatever field of study that they’re in,” Denton continued. “What I love to see is that creativity channeled into poetry. It gives students an opportunity to tell their stories, to inspect their lives, find value in their experience, put that on paper and share it with other people.”

In addition to providing poetry instruction to Tech students, the program also invites the community to engage directly with authors at poetry readings.

Denton stresses how important it is that every poet at the readings is dynamic and engaging. He recognizes that a person who is unfamiliar with poetry may not be willing to give it more than one chance.

“No boring poets,” Denton said. “Maybe students studied poems in high school and they got turned off in some way; so maybe they’ll show up at a Poetry@Tech event. That’s the second chance for them to fall in love with poetry.”

The next Poetry@Tech reading is on November 15 at 7:30 p.m. in Kress Auditorium. Billed “An Evening of Poetry,” the event will featuring readings from Kamilah Aisha Moon, Valzhyna Mort and Travis Denton.

The event will also mark the release of the 2018 issue of “Terminus” magazine, which is published by Poetry@Tech. The magazine is an anthology that includes the newest poems from visiting poets as well as art, fiction, nonfiction and memoir. It is available to everyone on campus for free.

Each reading attracts an audience of around 275 people, “which is unheard of for a poetry reading,” Denton said. Community members from outside of Tech make up around half of the audience.

“It’s been amazing to see the community support, and the campus support and the support from the administration that allows us to bring folks from everywhere,” he said. Professors from schools throughout Georgia such as Berry College and Gordon State College bring groups of students to Tech just to attend the readings.

In addition to classes and readings, Poetry@Tech provides free community workshops every spring. The organization also brings poetry into Georgia middle and high schools.

For example, a Spanish teacher at an Atlanta middle school reached out to Poetry@Tech with a special request. The teacher begins every class by reading a poem in Spanish, and her students have read the works of poet Juan Felipe Herrera. When she learned that Herrera, who was the United States Poet Laureate from 2015 to 2017, would be visiting Tech in the spring, she started working with Poetry@Tech to arrange for him to visit her students as well.

Poetry@Tech also works with senior citizen homes and community centers. For several years poets from the organization have visited Positive Impact Health Center, which serves individuals living with HIV and AIDS. Many of these individuals also struggle with homelessness or substance abuse.

“It’s been really interesting to see this healing power of poetry happening in this place where a lot of people are in despair, or their soul needs mending in some way,” Denton said. “A couple of years ago, [a Positive Impact client] wrote us a thank you note, and it said: ‘When I was asked to be in this poetry workshop, I thought I’d rather chew glass. After going through it, it changed my life … ’ because it taught this person how to tell their story, and that people are going to listen to it.”

For more information, visit poetry.gatech.edu.

I’m on the fence on whether scooters are a force for good or evil, or even if they should be discussed on those moral terms — but I do believe that scooters are the most disruptive transportation technology to hit the streets of Atlanta since Uber.

Forgetting safety for a second and assessing the matter in terms of helping people traverse a city — dumping scooters and bikes everywhere can work rather well in the right city environments, in my opinion. In summer of 2017, I was in China for nine weeks on a study abroad program, and one of the easiest ways to get around Tianjin or Shanghai was to take advantage of a loophole in older Ofo dockless bike models when paying riders forgot to lock their bikes after their trips.

Find an unlocked Ofo, and you’re good to go zipping around the city. Newer models have fixed that issue by automatically locking after a user ends a ride.

So to say the least, after a pleasant experience with dockless transport in China, I was ready to embrace them back at home, even at a cost. But little did I know that it would be scooters, not bikes, that would gain popularity.

When I think scooters, I think back to my childhood and a blue electric Razor Scooter my brother and I used to ride around and around our cul-de-sac. Over a year ago, when I first read about scooters as an actual mode of urban transport, I found the concept amusing.

Regardless of my initial skepticism, it seems apparent that scooters have caught fire, both in popularity, and, in the case of Lime scooters, literally: last week, Lime posted a blog letting people know the subset of its scooters manufactured by Segway-Ninebot were prone to “battery smoldering, or, in some cases, catching fire.”

So the question remains: are scooters to go the way of segways and hoverboards — relegated to niche populations — or will they take off and become a standard mode of transportation, like Uber? For me, the criterion for “standard mode of transportation” is becoming normal, ubiquitous, verbified and social to the point that the most regular thing in the world would be to Bird with a couple of your friends to Atlantic Station to watch a movie and Bird back.

At least from a venture capital standpoint, the scooter companies are following trajectories similar to or exceeding the growth of Uber. The two dominant scooter unicorns, Bird and Lime, were founded in 2017 and already have $2 billion and $1.1 billion valuations, respectively. This is a pretty rapid pace considering that it took Uber about three years from its initial seed funding in 2010 to reach a $3.5 billion valuation.

Similar to Uber, Bird and Lime also both offer a monetization method for the average person out there in the form of chargers that collect bicycles and recharge them overnight for instant money in the morning, a scheme that doubles as a method of managing scooter locations.

On a less pleasant note, like Uber, the scooter companies have been notorious for not communicating with local officials when introducing their vehicles to a region. Across the country, there have been complaints about scooters blocking sidewalks and cars, and riders not wearing helmets.

None of this rubs city officials the right way. In June, San Francisco banned all scooters companies after Lime and other companies ignored a cease-and-desist letter. When it came around to the decision-making time of which companies they would allow back on the streets, San Francisco city officials gave the cold shoulder to Bird and Lime and chose two smaller startups instead.

I think that here in Atlanta, we ought to give scooters a chance, while optimizing safety — an approach that I think that we at Tech have begun to manage well, with the advent of the Georgia Tech Police Department ticketing riders who violate traffic rules.

Relay Bikes, Atlanta’s homebrewed docked bike solution that launched in June 2016, had almost 11,000 rides in July 2018, a figure that sounds impressive until you calculate the amount of daily rides: a tad over 350 rides a day on average.

Although I lack usage statistics, just from watching popularity on campus alone, I am willing to bet that daily scooter rides across Atlanta are already well exceeding that threshold. Whether for better or worse, scooters are already a’changing the times.

It goes without saying that college years are key for a young adult’s educational development. Students undergo a crash course in what they will be doing for the rest of their lives and learn an immense amount of information in the four-plus years they spend on campus. What students, myself included, often forget is that their education doesn’t have to begin and end with the classroom.

Simply due to the nature of the American education system and economic system, college students spend the vast majority of their time focusing intensively on one topic. It’s not a bad thing; this allows them to become experts in their chosen craft and to know more than most others about a certain topic. But it leaves other topics by the wayside. At an extremely competitive school like Tech, it contributes to a tunnel vision effect that obscures everything except the center.

Colleges have tried to solve this problem by requiring core classes in various areas. Engineers have to take a humanities class. Liberal arts students have to take a computer science class. But this does not go far enough to ensure that students, in their critical years of development into adulthood, are becoming well-rounded people.

It is up to the student to augment his or her own education. It is up to the student, the lifelong learner, to seek out new experiences, perspectives and knowledge.

Luckily, schools like Tech recognize that students need and want more than they are offered in their required classes. There are myriad resources, as long as students open their eyes and look for them. Student organizations, performances at the Ferst Center, cultural celebrations, and many other opportunities are offered to students, just waiting to be taken.

Some of the powerful and most memorable educational experiences might not be in class — they’ll be at a hackathon that you didn’t think you were prepared for, a filmmaking competition that had nothing to do with your major, a dance performance that made you think in a different way.

These are experiences that aren’t graded. They can’t contribute to your GPA, and you don’t get course credit for them. They are instead opportunities for students to explore the world around them in an educational environment without the pressure of grades. For students afraid to try something new because they are scared of failing, this is a foolproof method. There is nothing to be lost and so much to be gained.

In addition to gaining a world-class academic education while at Tech, we have the opportunity to get a cultural education. We are in fact obligated to get that cultural education, as it will be just as important when we take our academic skills into the world.

It will help us to have more intelligent conversations, to be empathetic towards those who are different from us, to discover what might interest us and make us tick. It will help us to be happy, productive adults with a passion for lifelong learning.

We all want to feel like we’re good people who are helping to make the world a better place, but when it comes to poverty most of us actually have no idea what is good, helpful or effective. Like with most problems, we are driven to action instead of understanding, but with things like hunger, malaria and clean water, the difference between good and bad solutions can literally be life and death. In reality, the average American knows very little about the life and struggles of poor people in Africa, Southeast Asia or even down the street.

We want to help, but we are notoriously bad at distinguishing the difference between helpful and harmful. When companies like Toms offer a one-for-one model, it seems like a win-win. We get a pair of shoes, and someone in need gets one too. We think that if we buy their products our financial contribution is making the world a better place. It’s not that these companies are evil or malicious. They are just more focused on making a profit than actually helping poor people. They’re businesses, not charities. However, the one-to-one model is not only ineffective, it takes advantage of its customers and promotes lies about charity, doing more harm than good to the people it’s trying to help.

Companies with a one-to-one model sell you a narrative about countries with extreme poverty that is often grossly exaggerated and false. It says that the only way to help get kids out of poverty is to drop off a ton of shoes or school uniforms. It does nothing to create a self-sustaining community. These models do more to bolster our ego and little to actually alleviate the issues in these communities. They tell us that we know best when it comes to charity and that poor people are just waiting around for us to drop off shoes as though there are no shoemakers in Africa or Latin America. In actuality, flooding the community with free products can cripple the local economy, driving up unemployment for the people who make those products.

The one-to-one model does not seek to understand the actual problems plaguing people in poverty stricken regions and often disregards the real problems altogether. The reason poverty is such a hard issue is because things like culture, political unrest, gender roles, environmental issues and inefficient institutions underlie almost every issue. On the surface giving products like school uniforms to girls seems like a good idea, but in reality it can be more harmful than helpful.

Giving every girl a new school uniform doesn’t begin to address the root problems. Girls may receive school uniforms, but they are more than likely not attending school because they are expected to perform housework, get jobs in order to support the rest of the family or get married extremely young, often against their will. It oversimplifies the issue to say that the only thing stopping girls from going to school is that they don’t have the right outfit. The money spent manufacturing and shipping school uniforms would be much better spent providing the family with financial resources that are only available if the daughters remain in school.

What most people in these countries need is not more consumer goods but more money to buy consumer goods in order to support their local economy. The issue is that when we think about giving poor people cash, there is no way to know if that money is going towards education and food or booze and brothels. And it’s true, as giving away cash would be about as effective as dropping off a ton of shoes — I’m looking at you Drake.

However, there have been studies that show investing in women through micro-financing loans often has a high return for the entire family while also fighting against gender norms. It can have positive social effects, giving women a sense of autonomy and agency over their families and lives and allowing them to be self-sustainable.

If we’re going to make an impact, we have to be thoughtful about how we are giving — and to whom — and seek to understand the real issues as well as the real effects of the companies and charities we are supporting by building relationships with the people on the ground and by supporting grassroots efforts. Not every solution is good for every problem. Ultimately we can make a difference, but we need to be smarter about poverty.

In order to do that, there are a few steps you can take today. First, you can learn about global poverty. There are several books that sum up many of the major causes of poverty, initiatives that have been successful and progress that has been made. “The End of Poverty” by Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and special advisor to the UN, helps to describe the key issues surrounding poverty, and “Half the Sky” by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn — Pulitzer Prize winning journalists — discusses how empowering women can radically change impoverished communities and spur tangible change both economically and socially.

You can also explore different evidence-backed charities on givewell.org and check the validity ratings of charities on charitynavigator.org.

Finally, you can invest in people-to-people microlending organizations like globalgiving.org or kiva.org or sponsor a child through groups like Plan International or World Vision.

Sometimes hearing about poverty can make the world feel hopeless, but there are far less people living in extreme poverty today than there were 50 or 100 years ago, and this is because of effective and thoughtful charities that partner with people like us: ordinary people who care.