I was wondering how much processing you had to do to get the first shot - but from your description not much. A real world (not fantasy) Thomas Kinkade-type scene, very well executed. I think we can all be glad you stopped to take the shot, too.

Glad you could make it up there!

I think I understand your point. (this is a reply to scruples - Page 2)

Our "phones" - or as Rush Limbaugh used to say - computers with a phone app - are the "cameras' for most people now. Always ready. Simple to use. Point and click. Some adaptability features and built-in image editing. Why carry a camera?

The ability to take a large number of photographs cheaply and immediately see the results is truly transformative.

I think about the few photographs my generation has of our life as children, versus my grandchildren, who have had most of their life recorded in photographs and videos. I wonder who's going to look at those thousands of images? Will they have the same weight as the one photograph of my wife, her sister, parents, and dog standing in front of their service station with the 29.9 cent gas price sign in the background. Or the Polaroid that the same father-in-law took of my 3-year old daughter in her overalls in the same station (which now also exists as a digital copy).

Fabulous. My first inclination was the same as anotherview's. I wanted to crop it down and emphasize the central reflection. There is a tension, though, between the shot format and subject that I find compelling. A tighter, landscape format would be static - but still beautiful. A tighter portrait format would seem "squished". I think this composition draws us into the vertical axis in a way that a tighter shot might not.

Like automobiles, televisions, and other electronic gadgets - even refrigerators and washing machines - the pressure isn't from the end consumers but he the need to at least keep up with your competition. Electronics and computer controls make it "simpler" to add features - and before you know it a fairly basic car costs as much as my first house - but is loaded with computerized stuff that is not essential to me getting from point A to point B. Same (or worse) with cameras. You get all of the features because they A) fit some niche, and B) everyone else has it (or has it -1). Mechanical cameras were limited by the mechanical functions you could build into a body. Electronic devices are limited by what they can sense, what they can change, and what they can be programmed to do - which still comes down to capturing an image through a lens, diaphragm, and "shutter" (physical or electronic).

In the end, though, it still is just capturing enough light on a receiver (film or sensor) at the right moment. The camera's functions can help achieve that, but it is the person pushing the button that is essential.

At some point, all effects require a cause. The "nothing" postulated before the "Big Bang" had to truly be nothing - no time, matter, energy, anything. If there was "something" (the singularity) before the Big Bang, what caused it to Bang? If it was something internal to itself, why did it bang when it did? What initiated the cause? - In the end, there must be a First Cause - a starting point for all causes.

It is not practically possible have an infinite series of events in the past and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents there being an infinite expansion-collapse-expansion of successive universes.

The best statement of the situation before the Big Bang is the Kalam Cosmological Argument :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

If there is nothing before the Universe begins, what caused it? The only logical answer is something timeless (not dependent on time or outside of time, which did not exist), space-less (does not occupy space that did not yet exist), immaterial (not composed of matter, which also did not exist), powerful (able to provide all of the power necessary to generate the matter and energy in the universe - think E=MC2), and intelligent/willful (the fine tuning of the universe for life implies it is deliberate, only a mind or will can initiate a creative act. Forces respond to other causes, they cannot initiate anything - just as nothing can initiate the creation of something).

For a fuller explanation, I suggest a visit to https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument.

From Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

I saw one climb the brick wall inside the nature center at one of our State Parks. There were some things attached to the wall for it to get a grip on, but still, it was amazing!

Brilliant!

Science, when it comports with what is true, is useful. All of our technology is built on scientific principles that meet that truth test - it operates in accordance with principles that have been investigated and tested to function reliably in the same situations. There are areas of science that are outside the realm of technological verification. If quantum theory describes an actual state in which random events can - and will - happen, and we try to build technology affected by that randomness - we will be unable to trust that technology unless its only purpose is to generate random results. We cannot be sure of unreproducible states from the past - the Big Bang, the origin of life, creating a black hole, the development of our moral intuition - we can only propose mechanisms that may have produced observed effects. It is incumbent on scientists to continually est presuppositions, verify theoretical results, and test competing explanations for observed phenomena - particularly those that don't appear to be lab testable.

"Going with what works is the default position of evolutionary sconce, that says our intellect is only an adaptive mechanism to ensure survival and not a means of ascertaining truth. Followed to its logical conclusion, we can only be sure of technology - science that works. The theoretical can just be deviant motions of molecules in our brains with no truth value.

As another Registered Architect, I'll back up Architect1776's contention to a point.

One, an Architect (or attorney's) responsibilities go beyond the possible design services AI can achieve. An AI designer can probably accomplish about 90 percent of the architectural design services in the US. We will see AI taking an increasing load from all sectors where processes can be data determined - and architecture is one of those fields.

Two, What AI can't do is be truly creative - that is the product of a mind and cannot be converted into a material process. We also forget that AI is dependent on the minds that provided its programming. That's where the question of bias and manipulation come in.

Three, We are already seeing in tests of ChatGPT that there is bias in how it responds to some questions - that is inevitable. We should fear the ability to create systems we depend on that can direct responses in a particular way - the Twitter files controversy makes that very plain. People with an agenda - particularly to control other people - will always work to undermine personal freedom, autonomy, and knowledge - and use whatever tools are available to accomplish that. If we can establish social "rules" that reject discussions of voting irregularities, alternative medical treatments, or basic biology; how can we expect the creators of AI to provide "idea neutral" platforms? Even AI performing basic data analysis will be hobbled by the preconceptions of the software designers, the range of data selected for the AI to operate on, or the inquiries provided to it. Humans are biased. AI will be also.

The "chemtrails" DEFINITELY aren't making us smarter!

We do need to recognize that Science(r) has a predisposition to maintain orthodoxy and reject outright evidence and interpretations that run counter to the current paradigm. Current cosmology is a case in point. In what other area of science do we permit the introduction of unobservable, undetectable (except possibly by inference) matter and forces in order to "make the science work"? Those who fund cosmological research and those dependent on that funding stream are loath to permit the introduction of alternative scientific explanations. Origin of life research also will only permit materialistic theories, no matter what alternative the evidence points to or how vastly improbable "our happy accident" is. As we experienced with COVID, we should never accept the idea that "Science" has everything figured out, understood, and wrapped up in a a bow. "Science" is the output of imperfect people trying to make sense of things they have no control over while influenced by their myriad wants and desires - including appearing right in the eyes of others.

I'm all for people who challenge "science" with evidence and an open mind. Stifling alternate interpretation and evidence breeds conspiracy theories and the kinds of ideology that will refuse rebutting evidence.

FDU left a lot of people in Indiana crying! As Butler can also attest, small schools can accomplish big things.

Wow!

Now there's a story in pictures! Terrific set.