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]


Update June 7, 2018 - Hall of Shame

This article is a Hall of Shamer ™ for irrelevance. I have migrated from r.js to Webpack.

One of the great principles of Require.js is that you shouldn't need a build step during development, you should simply be able to refresh the browser and see your changes reflected. This does not mean, however, that you should also have to compromise on performance. Often times it makes sense to modify your application's source at build time for performance reasons. This includes minification, annotation, inlining of text dependencies, or even transpiling one source format to another. Require.js offers the r.js build tool to optimize your code for production as well as a robust plugin system. This article will focus on the former, using Angular.js dependency injection annotations and ngmin as an example.

The Problem

In Angular.js a dependency injection system is used to resolve dependencies and provide them at run time. Dependencies use constructor function argument names to match dependencies and provide them at run time. For example:

angular . module ( "people" ) . controller ( "MyCtrl" , function ( $scope , $http ) { } ) ;

Please see the JavaScript Dependency Injection article for a more detailed explanation.

This approach becomes problematic at the minification phase of a project because when the argument names are mangled they can no longer be properly mapped to dependencies.

angular . module ( "people" ) . controller ( "MyCtrl" , function ( a , b ) { } ) ;

For the above reason Angular.js provides a build safe approach for declaring dependencies which involves using strings to annotate dependencies.

angular . module ( "people" ) . controller ( "MyCtrl" , [ "$scope" , "$http" , function ( a , b ) { } , ] ) ;

This certainly works and is more akin to how we declare AMD dependencies, but doing these annotations means we duplicate our dependency declarations once in the array annotations and again in the function arguments. Worse, since we don't have the ability to use something like the excellent CommonJS sugar Require.js provides, we are forced to maintain two disparate lists of dependencies and match them up using order instead of variable declarations.

Wouldn't it be great if we could use a tool to perform these annotations for us? Enter ngmin.

ngmin

ngmin is a preprocessor which parses your code for injectable constructor functions and annotates them automatically making your Angular.js code "build safe".

ngmin somefile.js somefile.annotate.js

This command would output "somefile.annotate.js" which would be an annotated version of some file.

As a side note, ngmin also offers a grunt task and a Rails Asset Pipeline plugin.

Using ngmin is well and good and all but we now have an additional step of added complexity for every build we perform. A developer needs to run a concatenator (or dependency tracer), ngmin, and then the minifier. All of this before or after other application specific build tools. To make things worse order matters in many of these cases so running different tasks in parallel becomes difficult.

Enter r.js.

r.js

r.js is the defacto build tool for AMD driven projects and thanks to its extensible callbacks we can perform source modification using things like ngmin. This way developers will run "r.js" causing concatenation, annotation and minification to be taken care of by a single system. This helps reduce complexity in a build system by decreasing the number of cognitive steps to one instead of three.

Solution

r.js offers an excellent build hook "onBuildRead" which is invoked for each module, the return value of this hook will be used for the built file prior to minification. For performance reasons r.js will only invoke this on your bundled modules by default. I recommend setting "normalizeDirDefines" to "all" which means these modifications will be run on all files, not just your bundled modules. The reason I make this recommendation is because I believe you should run your unit tests after the build process and since unit tests are executed against individual modules you will need your source modifications to run against those as well. It is important to remember that tools like UglifyJS, r.js or ngmin aren't flawless.

( { dir : "javascripts-built" , baseUrl : "javascripts" , modules : [ { name : "MyApplication" , } , ] , normalizeDirDefines : "all" , onBuildRead : function ( moduleName , path , contents ) { return require ( "ngmin" ) . annotate ( contents ) ; } , } ) ;

Now all of "MyApplication" and its child modules will be run through ngmin, and minified afterwards. This means we can unit test those children as well. The combination of "onBuildRead" and "normalizeDirDefines" empowers us to perform testable source modification at build time.