madbad2000

So I'm still trying to decide on a final destination and age. I hit 30 years of service at 61, which is a nice mark to hit. I do have young kids, so that puts me middle of college for the youngest which may delay me a few more years. It is nice having some time and options in terms of where to settle down and when. My current plan for my end of career (Government) is to take a final assignment in Europe for 4-5 years and then move to my final destination after that. That way I do a lot of the prep work for a move (down sizing household goods, selling home, etc.) and can get a pseudo start to retirement by living it up in Europe and seeing a lot places on the bucket list cheap. Once I'm done, they can ship me back to my desired location. If I had to choose a spot right now, I'd probably choose Florida/Alabama Gulf somewhere. I'm not down for doing the Phoenix/desert lifestyle. I've been there quite a bit, love the food, do not love the summer weather. Not interested in snow birding either. I'm currently in the Huntsville area and we love it here. Lots to do, cost of living is low, weather is very good with fairly mild winters. Seeing as how I'll have a paid off house in a beautiful neighborhood, we could just choose to stay here and not mess around. The Rocket City Trash Pandas are a very short walk away, so that could consume my time easy enough. We have talked about doing the expat thing a bit, but nothing too concrete in terms of planning. I loved Thailand when I was there and it's easy to do expat thing. I also looked into doing it in Europe, such as Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Greece (basically southern Europe/Mediterranean) and would need to do more research. I see the appeal of Central America and that is on my research list as well. Having time to plan makes it nice because I can identify good spots and hopefully travel there for vacation/scouting before having to commit.

His accuracy in college absolutely holds weight even if it doesn't help some arguments. He has had success in the past as a pass first QB. It's obvious to anyone including Fields himself that his goal is to get back to being a pass first QB who has the ability to run. It could probably be argued that his first two years don't really hold weight based on where he was, how he was used and the lack of any support. I love his ceiling and hope this offseason continues building to give him a fair chance at showing what he can do. You're spot on though, he has not had a fair shake and that's rough because you're two years into your 5 year rookie window.

In college he completed 69.2, 67.2 and 70.2% while his highest rushing total was 484 yards in 2019. Hard to complete passes when you don't have time or reliable targets. I suspect he probably falls closer to 700 yards rushing and passing closer to 65% with a lot of deep shots. It's not like we are talking about Anthony Richardson where he has zero track record of passing accuracy in college. I like Fields a lot, but acknowledge that this is the critical year for him to show out. The biggest impact of that trade is DJ Moore. Eliminates a lot of excuses, pushes the current receivers down to more favorable pairings and should have better protection.

The Bears trade looks fantastic if they believe in Fields and he becomes the star he is capable of becoming and the trade also looks fantastic if he crumbles into nothing. If he increases his passing only a bit, they have their WR1 and more picks to keeping building up around him next year. If he fails, they are likely picking high again and have additional capital to try to get Williams or Maye while already having a WR1 to help the new rookie. I think we obviously disagree on Fields ceiling. There are maybe 3 QBs in history that have the playmaking ability with their feet to single handedly destroy defenses. Fields already has a great deep ball and has shown success in college with passing at a high level. It's easy to forget he got hamstrung by the Nagy experiment year 1, he had a new system last year with a severe lack of protection and weapons to help him out. Hard to hit timing throws when you're constantly fighting off defenders in your face immediately. I fully expect that to improve and Fields will get the Hurts hype all year long. Fields is a throw first QB that has amazing running ability and not the opposite that casual fans/observers seem to think he is. That along make his ceiling sky high, now whether he fully peaks is another debate.

That's interesting that you feel Fields is not a long term answer. I am impressed with his development in the face of a bare roster and expect him to make the major leap this year now that they finally added some protection and weapons.

Quality of life is a major consideration and one that I just talked about with my wife today. It is really hard to come up with an economic equivalent, but for us it is one of our biggest factors in choosing a just or location to live.

This right here, I can't recommend it enough. Apply for those jobs that you think you would like to do and can give you a skill, certification, clearance, travel, location or work life balance that you desire. I think this advice transcends industries too. It is very often the case that training a good candidate with potential is cheaper than waiting on the unicorn to walk through the door. Show them your potential, what you can do and that you have a plan. Don't blow off the 3/5/10 year question, show them how both sides benefit even if it means you plan to leave after 5 years. Odds are other candidates will probably leave before then, but they would have a chance to get 5 years of production with a possibility of keeping you longer. Plans can and do adjust as new data arises. When I left the Army, I had a very specific skill set that pigeon holed me into a very good job with decent location, but not everything else I was looking at achieving. I set my limits: no shift work, no nights/weekend, no bitter cold locations (wife), and no extreme travel. My field often has 2-3 of these per job. I eventually added goals for pay bands, retirement system and workload (no excessive overtime). I got a chance to step into a completely new field adjacent to my skills, hit more money than I was anticipating and lined me up perfectly for a Government role because they liked my potential and skillset. The skills needed for that role were so unique the only way to get them was to do my job which maybe 3 people were actually qualified and I could point them out by name. I furthered my experience and I am now very specialized in a field I had no idea existed 3 years before doing it. 5 years later I am now in the senior role and setup on the career path I identified for myself until retirement. Great feeling to know you hit your goals, but it is much easier by making a plan and being honest with your skills and desires. I have plenty of direct examples from friends applying for jobs outside their comfort or skills. My buddy got a ridiculous network engineer position without even having a college degree because of his actual work experience and he already lived in Alaska. If you're willing to take a tough assignment/relocate, that is another way to build your portfolio. He wasn't going to apply because it required a degree in engineering, but the circumstances of the job, employer and his demonstration of knowledge made that degree req disappear quickly as he accepted one of two open positions from a highly competitive process. Be honest with yourself, make a plan and apply...push boundaries and surprise yourself. Motivation session over.

I agree with Igor, I don't think age should be an issue. What you have done in the past shows what you are capable of regardless of age. And using a colleague is a great option too if they can speak directly to your performance and abilities. I have often seen this to be a better reference than a supervisor or someone with a bigger title because they tend to be glowing without any meat or examples. Just make sure that you let them know on your application to not contact current employer.

I don't get caught up in Titles. It's all about your experience and what you can do. Titles are not uniform and hiring managers can see through fancy/fluff pretty quickly. I work in the Defense sector and it seems like companies have more Vice Presidents than normal employees at times. I personally watched a company give an employee a VP title with zero change in responsibility or pay solely because they thought they could get this person an audience with a GS-15 to sell a product. Another small business was like 10 people and 8 of them were VPs outside of CEO and CFO.

I want resumes that speak to the job and your experience. If you have a one page that speaks to your skills and experience, fantastic. If you need 2 to demonstrate over the multitude of jobs you had, that's fine too. What I don't want to see is a drawn out resume that has experience that isn't applicable to what you're applying for. List your jobs in chronological order so no gaps..or explain a gap is fine too. I have had resumes where they had employment gaps due to school or moving, but it was explained easily. Always put the meat of your write up in those experience blocks that you're trying to highlight for the posting. And I agree that every resume needs to be tailored to that job opening. Use keywords from the posting and make sure to highlight the good stuff right up front in a summary of qualifications of some sort. For example, if you are applying for a job that needed a security clearance, put that right at the top to make it stand out. The last hiring process I was a part of required a Secret with TS preferred. There were probably at least 10 resumes where the candidate most likely had a clearance due to the job they were doing, but didn't get an interview because they did not list a clearance anywhere in the resume.

That's an interesting policy because I've seen the trend going away from references. I have never had a bad reference from either my personal applications or for hiring actions I have been involved with. I have only had a couple in the past year where references were even contacted at all and none had any impact on the selection because it was simply procedure to contact them via email whether they responded or not didn't matter.

I think you're on the right path, I would also add increased pizza competition and change in quality. Growing up, I remember Pizza Hut being THE game in town for pizza. Dominos was on the downswing and their only competition was a few local shops that tended to be neighborhood focused. Dominos really changed up their game, Papa Johns exploded, Little Caesars has found their niche and there has been a big upswing in artisinal pizzas, food trucks, etc. that all eat into their share. I am also convinced they changed up their recipe which isn't quite the same as it used to be. I haven't eaten pizza hut in over a year and a half and only a handful of times in the past 10 years because I had a store like a quarter mile away. If my family talks about getting pizza, PH never comes up as a preferred option.

I'm guessing it's been a very long time. I have heard it since I started really getting into cooking in the late 90s. I guess the proper question is when did it become a fashionable word. While I have seen/used the term a lot in my baking classes, it really has become more mainstream recently.

That's a great point. When you see wood fired in the US, it's normally priced as artisanal. Go to Europe and it's everywhere at a reasonable price. Much closer to quick/affordable overseas and less seen as a "craft" product.

I love all style of pizza. I'm a topping guy, so having a bit more base supports a greater quantity/variety. I tend to lean more towards a hand tossed for that reason. Thin crust would be a close second. Detroit style is good and the edges turn out great. My least favorite part of a pie is the plain crust at the edge. I can handle it, but prefer to have something more worthwhile to the taste buds. I do like when places like Pizza Hut put flavoring on the edge.

I love adding Cholula to my pizzas. Not every time, but it spices things up nicely. I used to be a Franks Red Hot guy, but Cholula offers a better flavor for pizza (and most items). I would do Franks on Wings and such. But as an overall flavor and spice enhancer, it's hard to top unless you want to add stupid heat.

I splurged on a RocBoxx a few years ago and we eat far more homemade pizza. It's pretty awesome to have a "portable" device that can crank it up to 900 degrees for that authentic pizza experience. It also works great for entertaining since everyone can make their own and it only takes a minute to cook each one once at temperature. I also do steaks in there on high heat and those are always amazing too.

I fully agree that they changed something and it doesn't taste the same. Pizza Hut was my favorite growing up and I have had it probably 4 or 5 times in the past decade. Dominos seems to be better than I remember as kid, but not enough to become a staple in my family rotation. I'll also say that I think Little Caesars changed for the better. They make a much more respectable pie and haven't increased prices much. Even my picky, German wife likes them, probably more for the crazy bread. At the end of the day, if I'm getting pizza its usually something local or Costco if doing a larger gathering. Hard to beat the value and quality of a Costco pizza

I am very glad that I ripped the bandaid off and got rid of cable and didn't pick up a dedicated streaming service. I cut my screen time back immensely without any regrets. I have netflix free with my cell phone plan, im a prime member so get video included and watch some free YouTube videos when i want some time killer. My wife and I were talking last week and our TV hasn't been turned on since the beginning of June and used sparingly prior to that. Lots more time with my young children, more physical activities outside and more work done around the house. Gives me time to do other things too like learn a language and piano. I think I always had this feeling like I was going to miss something if I didn't watch all the shows and talk about it at work around the water cooler. Very glad to be trying some new things.

I agreed with your point on Iridium and added to it. The USG is not even 25% of Iridium business today as they have really taken off with their commercial business. Look into the sensor market and Iridium is pretty much going to be the leader for good reason. They are also doing a lot in the Aviation industry for onboard data integrated with safety and voice. They have the luxury of a strong, long-term fixed contract with the Government that helps them leverage financing better than a lot of other companies. Going forward though, they are basically niche and not looking to be a global telecommunications provider to the general public. I used Alaska as an example from personal experience. I'm not talking about a single recluse riding moose in the woods. State and federal agencies, mining, oil, fishing, etc are all woefully in need of good broadband outside of major cities and actually present a really solid business case for satellite providers since you don't have to do much at all in terms of investment outside of what you're already doing in populating a constellation. And when you look at the usage of each space vehicle, users in these extreme latitudes are not having to contend with any saturation issues that may eventually pop up in more populated areas. One thing that stood out to me from being in this industry is the amount of places in the United States that are still lacking good coverage and throughput let alone expanding that out to a global scale. Will be interesting to see how it transforms in the next few years.

Something else to consider is that with satellite internet, you can in theory take that anywhere like a cell phone. The antennas are much smaller and I can see people switching from wired and taking it with them in their RVs or for other travel. Not the vast majority, but an interesting use case.. As long as you have power considerations, in theory you should be able to take it anywhere in the world.

Iridium is still active. The Government basically bailed them out for some exclusive access. They have since rebounded and completed an entire refresh of their constellation last year. Iridium didn't take off initially for quite a few reason with cost of equipment, cost of service and lack of data capability all contributing along with the rise of cell phone competitors who offered cheaper, better and more flexible options. They will be a player going forward in their current niche with aviation/maritime and government customer base. I dont see them as a player in a broad option to general population. We are reaching an interesting point where a user in the city will be able to choose between wired internet, cell phone (4g/5g) or satellite options that should all be at broadband speeds. Since cities are a major draw for user base, there will be a lot of competition and you should see corresponding prices reflect that. I would assume that cell phone probably wins out for most, especially as you start seeing more 5g hotspots for other devices in your home. Wired internet dominates home setups for good reason with the ability to connect all your wifi devices, but once cell phones start meeting people's needs for throughout, its on. I wonder if cable and internet providers will see a drop from those that are fed up with the customer service and experiences. I went out of my way to switch from Verizon Fios in Maryland because I hated the way they operated and their customer service. To the point that I had a competitor run a new line just to get rid of them. And after all of the hassle, I still enjoyed a 50% reduction in bill with faster speeds and much better TV packages. It will also be interesting because users in more remote areas will have either some alternate options or even a 1st time option for broadband without really increasing costs. If I'm a user in the middle of Alaska, my cell coverage is already spotty and "high speed" internet could still involve a kbps in the package. Not a great option for tradional GEO satellite service due to the extreme angles/latency and a LEO provider like Starlink could change my life in extreme ways. The cost to add me as a new satellite user is essentially $0. Whereas if I wanted 5G or wired internet at that speed, no telecom is looking to invest the cost of setup and maintenance in rural Alaska to capture my small monthly fee.

It will provide a better signal and have lower latency. The problem we have with current higher orbit constellations such as GEO is the distance it takes for your signal to travel from end-to-end. You're seeing a lot of loss and most small devices can't produce enough power to transmit and have a large enough receiver to catch the signal on the download. LEO is significantly closer and the small form factor devices out there even today is impressive. You don't really have a Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation that is built and marketed for home use. Iridium has the best one, but does not have the capacity for wide-spread use. It's pretty much for Business and Government who can pay the rates required. O3B has a MEO orbit and has already proven to meet current speeds, but again that is expensive due to the terminal requirements to access the constellation. Starlink is the front runner right now for a global, LEO constellation that is accessible for normal commercial use. Once they get a satellite receiver at a price point that is palatable for the general public and get their infrastructure in place, I think people will be impressed. I like what I've seen on it so far and having Amazon enter the game only makes it more likely that prices stay down due to competition.

Satellite internet is still very hit and miss (mostly miss) on the speed and connection. It is great if all you are using it for is surfing the web and getting emails. If you are doing anything like working from home good luck with that as your connection will be dropped a lot it will also feel like you are on dial up when doing conference calls and forget video because that is not going to work all that well. If you want to stream movies or shows satellite internet is also going to be a huge let down as you are going to be luck to get 480p from it. Also if you like to play video games online this will also not work as you will have a high ping and latency is going to be an issue. Elon Musk's starlink I believe it is called also has the same issues though once the technology gets worked more this should improve though plugging into a line will still be the fastest and most reliable way to get onto the internet. It really depends on what you are using. The upcoming constellations should be pretty solid once the constellations are mostly/fully populated. The current offerings at high speed are still a premium in terms of cost and not "high speed" if you're used to current home internet rates. I've tested some of the stuff out there right now/upcoming and it hits all of the marks. This is especially true if you're already in a disadvantaged location where it will be a complete game changer. With the capability, design and backhaul already being built you should have no issues doing video calls, streaming or gaming. But that is all once fully populated and gateways are in place to handle that traffic. It's also important to realize too that there is a large corporate social responsibility for these global constellations to bring internet access to the globe in areas that have nothing at all. So anything that they can pull will be amazing to them. Will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

I just don't see the federal government intervention for something like that. While the cell providers may like having the initial fed dollars to establish the coverage, they are likely to be stuck with the maintenance once done. And for the chance at a very small amount of additional revenue. They will also face stiff counter lobby from the satellite industry who have really taken aim at global internet on their LEO constellations. You're looking at 2-3 competitors right now who will be up and running in space probably before you could get a cellular lobby approval on that upgrade. And even then you're talking probably years before you could start to populate these northern dead spots with multiple years to get that coverage finished in just Wisconsin. All for how much more revenue? The cell companies are likely happy with their current infrastructure covering the major roadways and decent sized towns. They need their money for 5G upgrades which is going to put them in competition with current Internet providers and potentially a lot more revenue. The satellite providers are playing a numbers game globally, so I would bet their costs are going to beat cell plans currently without having a huge investment in hardware for the consumer.