u/thesagenibba

I have a BS in Environmental Science and work for my states environmental protection agency. I'm looking to go back to school to allow myself to move towards a role that's significantly more science i.e. natural phenomena and processes, physics, dynamics based, than I'm presently in.

After reading around, the go-to suggestion seems to be a Civil Engineering degree for aspiring hydrologists, and although I don't know much, I don't see the connection between CE & doing scientific, research adjacent, or research (work). The suggestion is often made in terms of providing oneself a safety net, in the case of employment.

What should someone who isn't interested in becoming a PE, signing off on designs, working on infrastructure etc. major in? Do I aim for a general BS in physics and take as many water resources/hydrology courses as I can? Does the job I'm dreaming of even exist? I've done a bit of research and my state agency, along with the EPA do hire official 'Hydrologists', alongside engineers as distinct roles/titles; I'm generally just a bit confused, I guess.

Just in case, I'd like to say that I don't want to pursue a PhD & work as/in academia as a researcher. I plan to continue working for a government entity, ideally as a scientist i.e. a hydrologist.

I currently work for my state's environmental agency in the environmental compliance section and want to start seriously planning the next steps of my career but feel a bit lost.

This is my first job out of college and in the little time I've been employed, I've acquired a great amount of knowledge across different areas i.e. environmental regulations, people skills and a bit of scientific/technical knowledge. I don't want to stay 'here' forever, though, and I desperately want to work in a role that is heavily science focused in the near future (ideally right after this job).

My main goal for the past 4 years, and by far my strongest passion is climate science/change and research, has been unfortunately gutted by the Trump admin, forcing me to reassess my future career plans. I am trying to pivot to a career focused on contemporary climate related/adjacent issues with a focus on the science, rather than the policy/regulations, without actually pursuing an advanced degree in Atmospheric Science as it's far too risky/non-existent in the US, as of now and for the foreseeable future.

People tend to instinctively recommend engineering but I have little appreciation for the inner-workings of machines and can't see myself working with/on machines even in a climate science context. As of now, I lean towards earning another BS in Physics and using my 2 years of professional experience to bolster my chances of landing a role as a researcher somewhere, doing something, but that also feels a bit dicey. I need help.

TLDR; I love math and science but don't want to do engineering. I want to work in something directly about or adjacent to climate science/climate change research, whether that be energy, atmospheric science, geophysics, chemistry etc. and I would like to work for a government agency (state or local). What degree do I pursue and what jobs exist for me with that choice?

Recently came back from a viewing of The Odyssey and I can't help but feel that my perception of the movie is heavily skewed by what it honestly apathy, at best, and distaste at worst, for the characters and the plot itself. I simply couldn't find myself interested or concerned about the wellbeing of any character, their desires, failures, actions etc. and I don't think the film (Nolan) did either. I'd like to figure out if that's a personal grievance or if anyone believes Nolan is 'at fault' for not doing the original justice (i haven't read it, i have no idea how faithful this is).

This movie races from scene to scene, never allowing for even 5 minutes of soundtrack-less visuals to let moments breathe and feel consequential. For instance, I was never given a reason to care about the wanton loss of life of the crew; they're thrown into the midst of a battle, they die gruesome deaths and we move on to the remaining soldiers who are bound to face the same fate; it's boring and devoid of impact. Nolan didn't bother including a single scene of substantial bonding between crew and Odysseus, with joke sharing, story sharing etc. within a nearly 3 hour movie.

This felt like a "Greatest Hits: The Odyssey" with Nolan bouncing back and forth between the original text and his script and checking off each scene as he goes i.e. he's obviously just checking off boxes. I'm unsure if the fundamental premise of the original text just doesn't resonate with me, or if Nolan's adaptation is what I take issue with but I know that close to nothing about this worked for me.

Important Background: 22 M, currently living in Fort Wort, Texas; have only ever lived in Florida (Miami & Orlando) for 20 years , Austin (TX) for 5 months and Fort Worth for 2. I plan to stay in Fort Worth for 2-3 years (ideally out by the fall of 2028). I'm fully aware things can always change but I like to think of the future and plan ahead so I want to start establishing an idea of where I can set my sights on creating a grounded future for myself.

I'll likely only be able to afford one and at most two, meaningful (longer than a week) trips out to any prospective city so I'll be deferring the rest of my decision to reddit, youtube videos and other internet resources. I wanna live in my new city for at least 5-10 years and ideally, set up a foundation, true community and hopefully live there for the rest of my life. My dilemma lies in the fact that what I want feels contradictory in many ways and I'm having trouble truly narrowing down my priorities in a way that works with reality.

Priorities:

• Walkability. Absolutely #1. I'm sick of driving. I live in Texas and the sprawl and car centric infrastructure goes without saying. Even though I live in Downtown, apart from the gorgeous and walkable avenue I live at, it's a car centric hellscape. I just no longer want to drive 4 miles to get groceries or 6 miles to go take a walk at the park or simply hop into a car to do anything. I'd like to get as close to 'true' 15-minute-city walkability as possible, in the US.
• Culture. I'm in love with a lot of 'the people' of Texas (so far). The laid back attitudes, southern accents (especially), spontaneous conversations, cowboy hats/boots, relative lack of self importance and slower pace of life has completely sucked me in. I want to be clear that I've barely been in Texas and have a very narrow, primarily work-based view of 'the people' but have very much enjoyed what I've experienced so far.
  • Some of what I listed may seem like generalities/stereotypes but it's real nice to go out and see most people dressed authentically in jeans and boots, go to a grocery store and listen to a handful of old people chat it up with the cashier or simply meet people who look like they spend most of their life offline and not tapped into current trends or largely anything internet related. I'm very drawn to the seemingly strong familial ties and relationships people have here and enjoy going out to restaurants and seeing large families with several young kids and elderly folks having a good time.
  • I like a bit of grittiness to a city and on a purely aesthetic (maybe superficial) level, am a lot more drawn to the atmosphere of Detroit, Raleigh, Chicago etc. than I am more 'polished' yuppie-coded cities like Boston, DC, and certain parts of NYC (sorry). I'd love to visit the latter, especially NYC, but can't really see myself thriving in a more (relatively?) bustling, fast-paced culture where people are likely more focused on their careers and climbing ladders than settling down and building their social lives/non-career foundations.
• Weather. I have pretty serious SAD and can't go prolonged (2+ straight weeks) periods without a couple of hours of blue skies and sunlight in between. The west coast i.e. Seattle, Portland etc. and certain east coast cities/areas like Pittsburgh and Upstate NY are nonstarters. I'm getting used to Texas winds and while not an absolute dealbreaker, it can get pretty irritating when trying to take a peaceful walk and the wind just never lets up. Snow isn't something I can really speak on as 99% of my life has been spent in Florida. The idea of plowing snow or experiencing below zero wind-chills isn't appealing but I don't want to dismiss entire swaths of the country based on something I've never experienced.
• Diversity. I'm black and don't really want to be the only or one of the few, black people in any given room or neighborhood I'm in anymore. I don't need to live somewhere majority black but I'd like to be somewhere that's either a healthy mix of ethnicities/nationalities or is majority minority (any, but most familiar with latinos). As for politics, I'm on the far left and I have and figure I'll continue to be able to find groups of like-minded lefties pretty much anywhere I go i.e. red state/blue state doesn't matter; I don't think ideology is nearly as geographically limited as people on here tend to paint.
• Outdoors/Accessibility. Going hiking, walking trails, going to the dog park, taking a scenic train or road trip or on any given weekend is (going to be) huge for me and I'd like to live somewhere with natural areas that feel distinct from the dense, urban city.

Shortlist (Deeply contradictory):

• Philly
• Chicago
• Boston
• DC
• Denver
• NYC/Nashville (Very low as of now)

Focusing largely on the most recent episode, Season 5 Episode 6
Though the Heavens Fall, I don't think it's been more evident than now, that this entire show is not only meant to softly allegorical, but simply an exact 1:1 to reality.

The quality of writing has been on a steep decline since Season 3 but Kripke and company truly threw in the towel in Season 5; the adage is "life imitates art", not "art imitates life" and Kripke seems to be terribly confused considering every third scene of this season is a near 1:1, if not, an exact 1:1 of a real-life event.

Take this episode, for instance; the 'VMC' commercial with Firecracker being an exact depiction of Nicole Kidman's AMC, commercial. The writers not even bothering to rename 'The villages' and give their in-universe old-person community a unique name, because why would you do that when you can just copy reality? Sage's masterplan mirroring billionaire plans to build bunkers during the apocalypse; I'm still not over this one, I can't believe they built up a 'super genius' whose grand act is to be the in-universe version of Zuckerberg or Peter Thiel, it's just riveting writing! Ashley ripping one of Trump's infamous lines nearly verbatim i.e. "Stand down (back) and stand by". The Alaskan pipeline controversy.

How the fuck is any of this intended to be interesting? Why would anyone want to watch a rehash of real-life events take place in the universe of The Boys? I already lived it, I don't want to see it reflected back at me in a more perverse, unfunny and creatively bankrupt way. Kripke seems to be so pathologically obsessed with imitating reality for reasons I honestly don't understand and it's made the show significantly worse for it.

I finished rewatching the entire show prior to starting Season 5, and believe it or not, there was a time when Homelander wasn't simply Trump 2.0, when The Boys weren't flanderized versions of themselves who spit the same one-liners and go through the same arcs every season, there weren't hours of screen time intended to support the numerous incoming VCU spin-offs over focusing on the main storyline, and every season wasn't dedicated to being 100% referential to a reality you already fucking live.