You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Congress is as close as it’s been in a while to reconsidering U.S. war policy

Share this:

The current AUMF has been used to justify everything from drone strikes on terrorist compounds in Yemen to missile strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

With little fanfare and even less warning, Congress on Thursday took a step forward in tackling something it has failed to touch over the last 16 years: the legal basis for ongoing U.S. military action abroad.

That move would force Congress to debate and consider a new legal foundation for U.S. military efforts, from drone strikes on terrorist compounds in Yemen to missile strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — whether that’s a new authorization of military force, or even a declaration of war.

Dissatisfaction has long simmered on both sides of the aisle over using the post-9/11 AUMF to justify ongoing U.S. military activity — especially without any open congressional debate on it.

The fate of the provision is uncertain, and there’s more than one way that GOP leadership could strike it. Whatever happens, it represents a new frontier in Congress’ debates about presidential authority to wage war, and Minnesota members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are broadly supportive of the measure.

That would give Congress the better part of a year to debate, consider, and adopt a new legal framework for U.S. military action overseas.

For most of its history, when it wanted to take military action, Congress would pass a declaration of war, which it has done 11 times against nine countries in U.S. history. Since World War II, Congress has not passed a full declaration of war; instead, it has enacted AUMFs, which provided the basis for the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War.

In Korea, Bosnia, and Panama, U.S. presidents used legislation giving them authority to intervene militarily on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The most recent AUMF was passed in the aftermath of September 11, and it has justified all U.S. military activity overseas ever since, with the exception of the Iraq War, which Congress authorized with a separate resolution.

The text of the document is simple: it authorizes the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred in September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

The text states that this authority is granted in order to prevent future acts of terrorism in the U.S. by these entities, and the document specifies out no expiration date for this justification for military action.

Most immediately, the AUMF authorized the beginning of the War on Terror, as the U.S. took military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in several countries. (Lee, the sponsor of the amendment, is famous as being the House’s lone vote against that AUMF, which passed three days after 9/11.)

But the 9/11 AUMF’s flexibility continued to be of use to commanders-in-chief: it has been used to justify strikes against targets in a group of countries, including Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It has also been used as a justification for action against the Islamic State, a current rival and former ally of al Qaeda, though ISIS itself came into existence long after 9/11.

In 2013, Barack Obama did make some effort to seek authorization for military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons. A resolution advanced out of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but it failed to gain broader support in Congress, and Obama declined to take action against Syria without it.

Bipartisan support for a new basis for war

When Lee’s amendment was approved by voice vote in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Thursday, some members were so happy that they reportedly clapped and cheered. It represents the first time since the 9/11 AUMF passage that this kind of language has advanced in a meaningful way in the legislative process.

Democratic and Republican members of Congress have gradually grown dissatisfied with the past three presidential administrations, from George W. Bush to Obama and now Donald Trump, using the 9/11 AUMF as justification for new military action.

Historically, the enthusiasm for a new AUMF or a declaration of war has been with anti-war progressives and constitutional conservatives, both wary of executive overreach. But recently, as U.S. targets have shifted to include ISIS and now the Syrian military, more voices on both sides have expressed a desire for at least a debate on a new set of parameters for U.S. military action.

Lee has been a tough and persistent advocate for this position for years; Politico reports that this work ultimately won over some of her colleagues, including the Appropriations Chair, New Jersey GOP Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, to her side in the unexpected vote to advance the measure. Democratic and Republican aides alike expressed real surprise that Thursday’s news happened at all.

Fourth District Rep. Betty McCollum, who sits on this committee, said in a statement that she supported it “because it is long past time for Congress to have a debate on this critical issue. After 16 years, we owe it to the men and women serving in the military, and to all Americans, to have a full and complete discussion and a floor vote on a new authorization.”

First District Rep. Tim Walz, the top Democrat on the House Veterans’ panel, agreed, saying in a statement he fully supports the amendment to “force congressional debate on our most solemn constitutional duty,” adding that a debate and vote on a new AUMF should occur “as soon as possible.”

Minnesota’s Republicans all joined Democrats in hailing Thursday’s developments. Second District Rep. Jason Lewis praised it most strongly. “It’s the role of Congress to give the executive authorization to use military force,” he said, arguing the current AUMF “should not be considered a perpetual grant of war powers.”

“America’s sons and daughters should not be sent into harm’s way without serious debate by those chosen to represent them,” Lewis said.

Third District Rep. Erik Paulsen said the AUMF discussion is “definitely warranted” and that he looks forward to the debate.

Emmer told MinnPost that he hadn’t studied the amendment in full yet, but welcomed the discussion. “There shouldn’t be a carte blanche… there’s a reason why we have Congress,” he said.

Plenty of obstacles ahead

Though the bipartisan progress on the AUMF amendment is clear, there are still plenty of ways that it could fail.

There are important holdouts who could exercise their power to kill the amendment. Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, chairs the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, and she opposes it on the grounds that it would cripple U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.

The House Rules Committee could strike the amendment before the defense spending bill gets to the floor for a vote by deeming it “out of order,” if the GOP majority, which wields the rules panel’s power, decides to.

If the language does make it to the House floor, a lawmaker could file an amendment to strike Lee’s amendment, and members could vote in favor of that, or against the entire spending bill if there was enough support to maintain the current AUMF without any debate.

If the bill does pass with the AUMF language, the Senate would need to agree to it, too — another potential way it could fail, though bipartisan support exists in the upper chamber for a new AUMF. President Donald Trump could also veto the bill on those grounds, though the stakes would be high, since the amendment is attached to legislation that funds the entire U.S. military and Department of Defense.

According to Emmer, the will to have the AUMF debate is growing within the GOP. “It’s a discussion that has actually started within the general conference about what is the right way to do this,” he said. “It’s time to have the discussion.”

Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison was more cynical. In a statement, he ventured that Republicans might be allowing the debate now because “they’re finally coming to terms with the fact that their president is an immature, disinterested, petulant child… even the most ideological among the GOP realize that giving a man like that the authority to make war when and where he pleases without congressional oversight is a bad idea.”

At any rate, with Lee’s amendment part of must-pass defense spending legislation, someone will have to take action to strip it. Even if that happens, it’ll be further than the proponents for a new basis for U.S. war have gotten in over a decade.