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]


Western Force Rugby Supporters Site - Super Rugbyhttps://twf.com.au/
Those Super 12 14 Rugby jokers from other states and countries ;) ...enFri, 22 Feb 2019 16:10:49 GMTvBulletin60https://twf.com.au/images/misc/rss.pngWestern Force Rugby Supporters Site - Super Rugbyhttps://twf.com.au/
https://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40563&goto=newpost
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:22:14 GMTGold from Spiro one of his best articles
By dumping Larkham, the Wallabies have been Cheika-mated
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Following numerous stupid decisions by Rugby Australia over the last couple of years, an officious bystander is virtually forced to believe that the organisation cannot run...

Gold from Spiro one of his best articles

By dumping Larkham, the Wallabies have been Cheika-mated

Spiro Zavos
Expert

Following numerous stupid decisions by Rugby Australia over the last couple of years, an officious bystander is virtually forced to believe that the organisation cannot run a bath.
Now we have the matter of Stephen Larkham being dropped from the Wallabies coaching staff.

What the rugby public and media is being told about the Larkham matter defies a rational understanding.

He has been dropped from the Wallabies responsibilities, right. But, “his expertise” (CEO Raelene Castle’s words) will enable him to link up the Sevens teams, the under-20 state academies and a program intended to integrate Sevens and XVs programs.

Wait, though, there is more!

Castle has promised that Larkham will be considered for head coach of the Wallabies after Rugby World Cup 2019.

Let us throw some facts into this discussion.

Here is Wayne Smith in The Australian: “Since 2016, Australia has played 42 Tests for only 17 wins. The Wallabies have lost 11 of their last 15 internationals and Cheika’s winning record has slumped to 48.3 per cent, the lowest of any coach in the professional era.”

These statistics do not include the years from October 2014 and the whole of 2015, a Rugby World Cup year when the Wallabies reached the final for the fourth time. When these years are included Cheika’s record stands at 28 wins, 28 losses and two draws.

There is a strong argument to be made that these statistics indicate that the Wallabies were successful when Cheika’s team was essentially the side that he inherited from Ewen McKenzie.

By the time McKenzie’s relatively successful Wallabies had become Cheika’s Wallabies last year, a year out from the Rugby World Cup tournament in Japan, the side had degenerated to such an extent that 2018 was one of the worst in the history of the national side.

This is the point that should have been understood by Rugby Australia. The Wallabies have got worse in every indicator under Cheika’s regime. And the longer he has been in charge, the worse the results in terms of winning and losing have become.

So faced with these facts, Rugby Australia has sacked the attack coach of the Wallabies. The defence coach, Nathan Grey, and the forwards coach Simon Raiwalui, have been kept on despite the fact that the Wallabies defensive record has been appalling and the forward play not on a par with its top tier opponents.

Where is the logic here?

According to a perceptive commentary by Bret Harris in The Guardian: “When Cheika replaced Ewen McKenzie as Wallabies coach at the end of 2014 the team’s style was modelled on the NSW Waratahs’ Super Rugby title-winning team. Looking for something extra, Cheika turned to Larkham, who brought with him the Brumbies’ playbook and a treasure trove of set-piece moves… Time and again the Wallabies’ attack broke down, more often than not behind the advantage line, after a series of complicated handling manoeuvres went wrong… During the course of last season you could hear Cheika talk more and more about the need to simplify the Wallabies’ attack.”

So the poor performance of the Wallabies last year on attack, scoring on average 19.2 points a Test, according to coach Cheika, was due to Larkham’s input into the game plans of the Wallabies.

What about the porous defence?

What about the lack of power and authority in the forwards?

What about Michael Cheika himself as head coach?

Apparently, the buck stopped with Stephen Larkham.

In the real world of international rugby coaching, or any other major sports, if a team is failing the way the Wallabies have been, the governing body sacks the head coach.

The head coach has the responsibility and big salary that goes with this responsibility to produce the goods from his team. If the team, he fails.

If Larkham had to go, then Cheika should have led the way for both of them out of the door.

Rugby Australia has always been scared of Cheika ever since they grovelled to his demands when a replacement was sort when Ewen McKenzie resigned from the Wallabies a year out from Rugby World Cup 2015.

I use the word “scared” in the sense that Cheika was seen at the time as the only possible saviour of the Wallabies and that because of this Rugby Australia believed his every demand for more and more control had to be satisfied.

His unacceptable behaviour towards referees and in the coaches box was accepted.

And now, Cheika’s terrible record as a Wallabies coach is glossed over by Raelene Castle accepting Cheika’s excuse that Larkham was the problem, not himself: “You don’t want everyone to agree all the time. You need challenges and differences of opinion. but ultimately they didn’t feel the core elements of the Wallabies were aligned and that’s why… Michael believed… it was the right thing for Stephen to move on.”

Cheika-mate against Rugby Australia by the coach of the Wallabies.

We needn’t feel sorry for Larkham, though. His sacking from the Wallabies has, bizarrely, given him the front running to succeed Cheika after the Rugby World Cup tournament in Japan.

The best articulation of this theory comes from Neil Breen, an experienced print and television reporter, who now writes for The Sun-Herald thanks to Channel Nine’s takeover of Fairfax Media.

On Sunday Breen wrote an article for The Sun-Herald titled: “Larkham will have the last laugh in the stoush with Cheika.”

Breen pointed out that there was “affection for Larkham in the Rugby Australia hierarchy.” They allowed him to dump on Cheika, “We have difference in attacking strategies and over game philosophy… I am pleased to be able to continue coaching and contributing to Australia rugby.”

Breen’s gloss on this revealing: “The Wallabies won’t be winning the 2019 World Cup, so Cheika won’t be coaching in 2020. That man will be Stephen Larkham, who’s been kept inside the tent, and when he’s in charge he can stop the chopping and changing of back line personnel that stagnated the attack.”

I think that Breen is right on this conclusion.

Rugby Australia is clearly setting up Larkham to be the next head coach of the Wallabies.

But is Rugby Australia right to take this approach? I would argue that it is not. Larkham has taken the Brumbies, historically the best of Australia’s Super Rugby sides, to the Super Rugby finals.

Unlike Cheika, though, Larkham has no trophies to show for his coaching stints.

He was, admittedly, one of greatest players in the history of rugby. But great players, in most sports, rarely make great coaches.

The fact is that there is nothing in Larkham’s career that suggests he can be a successful coach of the Wallabies.

There was nothing in his coaching record that suggested he could even be a successful assistant. In his time with the Brumbies, as an assistant coach and then a head coach, the Brumbies were noted for their lack of flair and adventure in their back play.

This failure by Larkham to coach effective, fluent, attractive and high-scoring attacking play was carried through to the Wallabies, according to Michael Cheika.

My main takeout from all of this is that Rugby Australia and the Super Rugby franchises have promoted too many favourite sons to positions of coaching authority. Favouritism has trumped accomplishments.

Good coaches have been denied higher positions. Favourites, without any real records of success, have been promoted to jobs they should not have been appointed to.

The end result of this selection by favouritism method is that there is no one coaching within the Wallabies or the Super Rugby franchises who has the record of achievement a Wallabies coach should have.

This is why, it seems, that when Michael Cheika goes Stephen Larkham somehow becomes his inevitable successor.

And it seems to me that this system of selection by favouritism is still at work.

Can anyone inside the NSW Waratahs organisation explain to the rugby public how Chris Whitaker, the newly-appointed defence coach of the Waratahs and clearly in line to take over as head coach when Daryl Gibson goes, got the job?

There are very many Australian coaches, here in Australia and overseas, who have better credentials than Whitaker.

Were any of these coaches considered for what is one of the more important coaching jobs in Australian rugby? If not, why not.

]]>Super RugbyBakkieshttps://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40563Why Stephen Larkham will have the last laugh over Michael Cheikahttps://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40561&goto=newpost
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 06:35:10 GMT---Quote---
*Why Stephen Larkham will have the last laugh over Michael Cheika*
By Neil Breen
9 February 2019 — 5:59pm
Australian rugby is in a strange place – and definitely not where you want to be in a World Cup year.
Season 2018 was disastrous for the Wallabies: four Test wins from 13...

Quote:

Why Stephen Larkham will have the last laugh over Michael Cheika

By Neil Breen
9 February 2019 — 5:59pm

Australian rugby is in a strange place – and definitely not where you want to be in a World Cup year.

Season 2018 was disastrous for the Wallabies: four Test wins from 13 attempts.

Under coach Michael Cheika, who took the reins in October 2014, the record stands at 28 wins, 28 losses and two draws.

It’s not good enough.

Behind you all the way: Sacked Wallabies assistant Stephen Larkham (left) and head coach Michael Cheika.
Behind you all the way: Sacked Wallabies assistant Stephen Larkham (left) and head coach Michael Cheika.

Photo: Omnisport
Cheika began in a blaze of glory. The guy from the club the rugby system who excelled as a coach in Europe’s Heineken Cup before coming home and taking the Waratahs to unthinkable Super Rugby glory in 2014.

Then Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie came a cropper off the back of the strange Di Patston happenings and the fallout.

Cheika was sitting pretty and, bang, he’s coaching the Wallabies, taking them on a glorious run to the World Cup final in 2015.

Cheika looked in all sorts of strife after the Wallabies' spring tour, which yielded one win over lowly Italy.

But the Rugby Australia board backed him. It was a decision more out of fear of the unknown. How could they go into a World Cup year with a new coach, leaving behind the three years of investment since the last World Cup?

In effect, the World Cup saved Cheika. If this wasn’t a World Cup year, he would not be coaching the Wallabies.

In backing Cheika, the board then had to give him his way. He wanted Stephen Larkham gone as attack coach and made that recommendation to the board.

What's next: The Wallabies are looking for a new attacking coach after Stephen Larkham was let go.
What's next: The Wallabies are looking for a new attacking coach after Stephen Larkham was let go.

Photo: Brook Mitchell

In Cheika’s eyes, Larkham was low-hanging fruit. The Wallabies averaged just 19.2 points a game in 2018 as the back line changed on a weekly basis. Those stats, and the offering of Larkham as a sacrificial lamb, played a key role in Cheika saving himself.

Larkham is an Australian rugby hero, a man as responsible for World Cup glory in 1999 as John Eales and George Gregan. A man loved by Australian rugby fans, who did such a great job as Brumbies coach that he had to be drafted into Cheika’s national set-up for the national good. After all, rugby in Australia exists from the top down.

The board’s dilemma was that it loved Larkham, too, but having backed Cheika as coach, they had to grant him his wish of jettisoning Larkham.

During the Christmas period, Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle worked hard to keep Larkham in the system, eventually convincing him to take the newly created role of national high performance coach adviser.

Unlike McKenzie before him and Eddie Jones before that, a coaching talent not lost to Australian Rugby.

The affection for Larkham among the RA hierarchy was spelt out in the official press release that announced his dumping from the Wallabies set-up; not by anything they said in the release, rather something Larkham said.

Press releases by businesses or sporting bodies announcing someone has been flicked are normally as see-through as plastic wrapping.

“The person did a great job, but they are now going to explore new opportunities”, followed by said person saying how excited they are to be "spending time with family and exploring new opportunities”.

The release featured this gem of a quote from Larkham: “Ultimately, Michael is responsible for the performance of the team. We have differences in attacking strategy and overall game philosophy. We couldn't agree on these key points and it is in the best interest of the team that they receive clear and consistent messages from their coaches.

"I am obviously disappointed with this outcome as I had chosen to pursue the experience of taking the Wallabies through to the World Cup, however I am pleased to be able to continue coaching and contributing to Australian Rugby."

Here was a man allowed to give it to the man who axed him, the current coach of the Wallabies in a World Cup year, in the release announcing he was axed. Deluxe.

The Wallabies won’t be winning the 2019 World Cup, so Cheika won't be coaching in 2020.

That man will be Stephen Larkham, who’s been kept inside the tent in a holding pattern.

And when he’s in charge, he can stop the chopping and changing of back line personnel that stagnated the attack.

Down to earth: The Big Bash has struggled to maintain fans' attention this summer.
Down to earth: The Big Bash has struggled to maintain fans' attention this summer.

Photo: AAP

Big Bash and even bigger crash
When Married at First Sight got too racy for my teenage daughters' eyes and ears during the week the remote control was seized for a bit of Big Bash action, but there was none on.

Next night, the same thing. Which is the problem with this 59-match Big Bash season. It tried to become the Even Bigger Bash, but has morphed into the Medium-size Bash. There's too many matches and then there's no matches at all.

The Big Bash was built on the premise that it was, well, the Big Bash. It came thick and fast in the holiday period with action aplenty night after night. So good was it that Cricket Australia milked it and sold it into a bigger broadcast deal with more matches. But the grab for cash has stripped it of its very essence. The country has moved on; into work and school and MAFS and MKR.

Only three things can save it: more heroes, more villains and less matches.

And it escalates . Numpty vs Larkham with Grey on the side looking like a demigod. Fuck I just spewed.

]]>Super RugbySPaRTANhttps://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40561Who won todays preseason trial between the Rebels and Sunwolves?https://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40557&goto=newpost
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:44:56 GMTThe score is unreported on rugby.com.au link not worth referencing due to bias reporting not mentioning the score but talking about their spectacular relationship (despite the Sunwolves about to get the chop, glorious relationship, go near the rebels and sayonara!!!)

The score is unreported on rugby.com.au link not worth referencing due to bias reporting not mentioning the score but talking about their spectacular relationship (despite the Sunwolves about to get the chop, glorious relationship, go near the rebels and sayonara!!!)

New model would 'imperil' Australia's Super Rugby teams
WAYNE SMITH: The Australian
January 25, 2019

The prospect of Super Rugby moving from a 15-team competition to a 14 team model, with each franchise playing every other franchise once, is starting to alarm Australia’s provincial bosses as it becomes apparent it would mean only six home games every second season.

There is now a groundswell of support throughout Australia for the retention of the club most likely to be axed from Super Rugby, the Sunwolves of Japan. Not only does it seem illogical and shortsighted to cull the very country that will be hosting the Rugby World Cup this year and the Olympics — including sevens rugby — next year, but the sheer mathematics of a reduced Super Rugby competition are just starting to be calculated in Australia.

“That would be an issue, a massive issue,” said NSW Waratahs CEO Andrew Hore. “Remembering that in Queensland and NSW’s case, a significant proportion of our income goes back into community rugby, so that could have a profound effect throughout the game, unless that’s acknowledged.”

Melbourne Rebels boss Baden Stephenson said Rugby Australia needed to do everything they can to keep Japan in Super Rugby. “I understand that there are many competing priorities. However, RA needs to push for a competition structure that best suits Australian rugby and the sustainability of the Australian Super Rugby franchises. Potentially reducing to six home games isn’t going to cut it commercially or grow the game here in Melbourne.”

Brumbies chief executive Phil Thomson provided a succinct: “It would make our financial position even more difficult.”

The Queensland Reds new CEO David Hanham believes the Australian franchises could be imperilled if there was a cut to six home matches unless there was an uplift in revenue from the broadcast deal.

“Broadcast revenue plays the most significant role allowing the QRU to develop, grow and promote the sport,” he said.

“Therefore, we need to get the balance right between broadcast revenues, fan engagement and localised contest.”

The inherent difficulty of SANZAAR selling a scaled-down Super Rugby to the broadcasters, even one welcomed in theory by the bulk of fans, is that there would be less content on sale —– 98 matches in the regular season as opposed to the 120 games that will be played this year and next. So even though the SANZAAR joint venture partners will enter the negotiations with high hopes, the fact is that they probably will need something else to sweeten the pie.

That is likely to be the proposed 12-team World League, the concept put forward by World Rugby deputy chairman Gus Pichot as a way of replacing “friendlies” with meaningful Tests.

NZ Rugby boss Steve Tew told his domestic media yesterday that keeping NZ players in Super Rugby was becoming harder and harder, as Japan and France steadily increased their offers. “We want to look after our fans, we want to look after our players, we want to look after our competitive advantages and we want to increase the revenue we’ve got,” Tew said. “And all countries come to the table with similar expectations.”

Australia will be represented in Los Angeles by Rugby Australia CEO, Raelene Castle.

To be fair, SANZAAR will not even decide what proposal to take to broadcasters until its meeting in March and it is understood that the 14-team model is one of several it has investigated.

Other models examined have been for a return to the 12 or even 10 team models of the past but, surprisingly, also for an expansion to 16 teams. Still, the 14 and 15-team competitions remain the clear favourites.

Ultimately, it is understood that RA will decide unilaterally what Australia’s position will be, although the reality is not likely to be so black and white. Castle would scarcely put so much work into achieving alignment between the states and the national body only to antagonise them by taking a decision that would leave them financially exposed.

Yet Hore believes that simply confining the discussion to how many teams should make up the competition from 2021 would merely be superficial.

“I have been very clear and open in my opinion that we have a governance issues in and around Super Rugby that is inhibiting us from fulfilling Super Rugby potential. That needs to be addressed,’’ he said.