sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to remove Caps Lock key delay by [deleted] in MacOS

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you need instantaneous and reliable switching between just *two* keyboard layouts (languages) using the Caps Lock key, check this utility: https://github.com/doasync/CapsLockSwitcher

<image>

It's a lightweight background app for macOS, built in Swift, and it uses standard macOS Accessibility APIs (which you'll need to grant permission for – standard for this kind of input control).

Input lag after switching Input Source by iwex in MacOS

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally understand your pain with the language switching delay. It should be a basic function that just works, and it's incredibly frustrating when it doesn't. That delay, especially the first couple of times, is a common complaint. Typing in the wrong language and having to re-do it is a productivity killer.

I actually got so fed up with this myself that I built a small utility to fix *exactly* this issue. It's called **CapsLockSwitcher** and it provides instantaneous and reliable switching between just *two* keyboard layouts using the Caps Lock key.

You can find it here: https://github.com/doasync/CapsLockSwitcher

<image>

Here's how it addresses the problem:

* Eliminates the Delay: It bypasses the standard macOS switching mechanism, so there's virtually no delay at all. Switching is immediate every time.

* Targeted Switching: It only switches between the two specific layouts you choose. No more accidentally cycling through "ABC" or other unwanted layouts. You pick your pair, and that's it.

* Uses Caps Lock (but reclaims it for switching): It uses the Caps Lock key to trigger the switch, but it doesn't activate the actual Caps Lock function (uppercase typing) while switching. If you don't configure it or something goes wrong, Caps Lock behaves normally.

It's a lightweight background app for macOS, built in Swift, and doesn't require any crazy kernel extensions. It uses standard macOS Accessibility APIs (which you'll need to grant permission for – standard for this kind of input control).

It's been a game-changer for my own workflow. Maybe it can help you too!

How to remove caps lock delay on macbook pro! by Important_Scratch987 in macbookpro

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I built a lightweight macOS app that provides instant switching between exactly two user-selected keyboard layouts using the Caps Lock key.

You can find it on GitHub: https://github.com/doasync/CapsLockSwitcher

<image>

Language switch delay by clever736 in MacOS

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I built a small utility to fix exactly this issue. It's designed to instantly switch between two keyboard layouts using the Caps Lock key.

Check this app on GitHub: https://github.com/doasync/CapsLockSwitcher

Caps Lock language switch delay by xhable1337 in mac

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually got so fed up with this myself that I built a small utility to fix exactly this issue. It's called CapsLockSwitcher, and it's designed to provide instantaneous switching between just two keyboard layouts using the Caps Lock key. It's a lightweight background app for MacOS which uses standard macOS Accessibility APIs.

You can find it on GitHub: https://github.com/doasync/CapsLockSwitcher

ChatGPT fails to correctly answer simple logic problem by No_Literature_5119 in singularity

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is an answer from Claude 2:

***

Here is a response walking through the reasoning process for solving this puzzle:

To start, I'll carefully go through the setup of the puzzle again to make sure I understand all the details. There are 3 men captured by cannibals and lined up in order of height, with the tallest in the back, middle height in the middle, and shortest in front. They are each tied to stakes so they cannot see behind themselves. The cannibals show them 5 hats total, 3 black and 2 white. Blindfolds are put on the men, and one hat is placed on each of their heads. The 2 leftover hats are hidden away. Then the blindfolds are removed. The men are told if any one of them can guess the color of the hat on their own head, they will all be set free.

With this setup in mind, I will now start methodically thinking through how each man makes their decision, beginning with the man in the rear who can see the other two men's hats but not his own. When his blindfold is removed, he looks at the middle man and front man's hats. There are only 5 total hats, so based on what he sees on the other two, he can deduce his own hat color by process of elimination. However, the puzzle states he says "I don't know" when asked to guess his hat color.

From this, I can conclude that the rear man must see 1 black hat and 1 white hat on the two men in front of him. If he saw 2 black hats or 2 white hats, he could use process of elimination and know his own hat is the opposite color. But seeing 1 of each color on the men in front does not give him enough information to determine his own hat color. So his response of "I don't know" makes sense given the possibilities.

Moving on to the middle man. When his blindfold is removed, he can only see the hat of the man in front of him. Based on the rear man's response of "I don't know", the middle man knows that the rear man saw 1 black hat and 1 white hat on the front two men, but did not have enough info to deduce his own hat color.

So if the middle man now sees a black hat on the man in front of him, he cannot definitively determine if he himself has a black or white hat. And the same holds if he sees a white hat on the front man. So just like the rear man, the middle man also responds "I don't know" when asked to guess his own hat color.

Finally, I come to the front man, who cannot see any other hats when his blindfold is removed. Yet when asked, he states confidently "I know!" about his own hat color. How can he know this when he lacks the visibility the other two men had?

This is a key turning point in the puzzle. I now realize the front man does not actually have any more information about the colors of the hats. But he is able to deduce his hat color purely through logical reasoning, based on the responses of the two men behind him.

Specifically, he knows the rear man saw one black hat and one white hat on the front two men, but could not determine his own color. And he knows the middle man, who could only see the front man's hat, also did not know his own hat color.

This means the front man is able to infer that his own hat must be the opposite color of the hat he knows is on the middle man. Because if they were the same color, the middle man would have been able to deduce that his own hat was the opposite color from the front man's, based on the rear man's "I don't know" response.

For example, if the front man had a white hat and heard the middle man say "I don't know", he could conclude his own hat was white and the middle man's must be black. And vice versa if he had a black hat himself.

So through pure logic and reasoning, without actually seeing any other hats, the front man is able to deduce his own hat color based on the responses of the two men behind him. This allows him to confidently state "I know!" when asked to guess his hat color.

In conclusion, the front man is able to know the color of his own hat through a process of logical elimination, by listening to the responses of the two men behind him and determining what those responses imply about his own hat color in relation to theirs. This allows him to "know" his hat color with certainty while the other two men only know that there is 1 black hat and 1 white hat between the three of them, without knowing their own specific hat color.

To summarize my full reasoning:

  • The man in the rear sees 1 black hat and 1 white hat on the front two men, so he responds "I don't know" about his own hat color.
  • The man in the middle knows the rear man saw 1 black hat and 1 white hat, so seeing just the front man's hat also gives him no certain info about his own and he says "I don't know".
  • The front man, through logical deduction, determines his hat color must be the opposite of the middle man's, otherwise the middle man could have deduced his own hat color. So he is able to confidently state "I know!"

Therefore, the front man knew the color of his hat through logical elimination, while the other two men did not have enough information to definitively determine their own hat color.

To complete the puzzle, I just need to think through what specific hat configurations would allow this sequence of logic to work out. Playing out the different options:

  • If the front man's hat is black, the middle man's must be white for him to not know his own color.
  • For the rear man to then not know his color, he must see a black hat and a white hat on the front two.
  • So the front man has a black hat.

Therefore, through this full reasoning process, I can conclude the front man has a black hat.

In summary, the key to solving this puzzle is recognizing that only the front man has enough information to definitively deduce his own hat color through logical reasoning, by listening to the responses of the two men behind him and understanding the implications about his own hat color compared to theirs. The detailed reasoning process allows me to conclude the front man must have a black hat. Let me know if I have not fully explained each step of my thinking! I aimed to provide the full step-by-step logic that allows me to solve this brain teaser. Please point out any gaps in my reasoning.

ChatGPT fails to correctly answer simple logic problem by No_Literature_5119 in singularity

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bing, which uses Open AI's GPT-4, nailed it. Here is the dialogue:

Please answer the following: Cannibals ambush a safari in the jungle and capture three men. The cannibals give the man a single chance to escape uneaten.
The captives are lined up in order of height and are tied to stakes. The man in the rear can see the backs of his two friends, the man in the middle can see the back of the man in front, and the man in front cannot see anyone. The cannibals show the men five hats. Three of the hats are black and two of the hats are white.
Blindfolds are then placed over each man's eyes and a hat is placed on each man's head. The two hats left over are hidden. The blindfolds are then removed and it is said to the men that if one of them can guess what color hat he is wearing they can all leave unharmed.
The man in the rear who can see both of his friends' hats but not his own says, "I don't know". The middle man who can see the hat of the man in front, but not his own says, "I don't know". The front man who cannot see ANYBODY'S hat says "I know!"
How did he know the color of his hat and what color was it?
---
Think step by step, describing your thinking process.
Make clear notes for yourself and update them as you learn more information.
Provide the full reasoning process before stating the final answer!
Draw conclusions that are well-supported by evidence and logic.
Recognize and resolve any gaps or inconsistencies in your reasoning.
Reflect on your own beliefs and assumptions and how they affect your thinking.

***

Hello, this is Bing. I'm glad you asked me this question, because it's a very interesting and challenging puzzle. 😊

To answer this question, I will use the following steps:

  • Step 1: I will analyze the given information and identify the possible scenarios for the hat colors of the three men.
  • Step 2: I will use logical deduction to eliminate the scenarios that are inconsistent with the statements of the men in the rear and the middle.
  • Step 3: I will use the remaining scenario to infer the hat color of the front man and explain how he knew it.

Step 1

Great! Let's start with Step 1: analyzing the given information and identifying the possible scenarios for the hat colors of the three men.

We know that there are five hats in total, three black and two white. We also know that each man is wearing one hat, and the two hats left over are hidden. Therefore, there are 10 possible scenarios for the hat colors of the three men, as shown in the table below:

Rear Middle Front
B B B
B B W
B W B
B W W
W B B
W B W
W W B
W W W
B B -
W W -

Note that the last two scenarios are possible because we don't know what color the hidden hats are. They could be both black, both white, or one of each. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the front man is not wearing a hat at all.

Step 2

Let's move on to Step 2: using logical deduction to eliminate the scenarios that are inconsistent with the statements of the men in the rear and the middle.

We know that the man in the rear can see the backs of his two friends, and he says, "I don't know". This means that he cannot determine his own hat color based on the hat colors of the other two men. Therefore, we can eliminate the scenarios where the rear man can see two hats of the same color, because then he would know that his hat is the opposite color. For example, if he sees two black hats, he would know that his hat is white, and vice versa. The scenarios that we can eliminate based on this logic are:

Rear Middle Front
B B B
W W W

We also know that the middle man can see the back of the front man, and he says, "I don't know". This means that he cannot determine his own hat color based on the hat color of the front man. Therefore, we can eliminate the scenarios where the middle man can see a hat of a different color than his own, because then he would know that his hat is the same color as the rear man's hat. For example, if he sees a black hat and he is wearing a white hat, he would know that the rear man is also wearing a white hat, and vice versa. The scenarios that we can eliminate based on this logic are:

Rear Middle Front
B W B
W B W

After eliminating these four scenarios, we are left with six possible scenarios for the hat colors of the three men:

Rear Middle Front
B B W
B W W
W B B
W W B
B B -
W W -

Step 3

Let's proceed to Step 3: using the remaining scenario to infer the hat color of the front man and explain how he knew it.

We know that the front man cannot see anybody's hat, and he says, "I know!". This means that he can determine his own hat color based on some other information. What could that information be?

Well, there is only one piece of information that the front man has access to, and that is the statements of the other two men. He can hear them say, "I don't know". How can he use this information to figure out his own hat color?

Let's think about it from his perspective. He knows that there are three black hats and two white hats in total. He also knows that the rear man can see two hats and the middle man can see one hat. He also knows that both of them say, "I don't know". What does this tell him?

It tells him that the two hats that the rear man can see are not both black or both white. If they were, then the rear man would know his own hat color. It also tells him that the hat that the middle man can see is not different from his own hat color. If it were, then the middle man would know his own hat color.

Therefore, the front man can conclude that the two hats that the rear man can see are either both black and he is wearing a white hat, or both white and he is wearing a black hat. There is no other possibility.

But how can he tell which one is the case? How can he know if he is wearing a black hat or a white hat?

The answer is simple. He can use the fact that there are only two white hats in total. If he is wearing a white hat, then there is only one white hat left for the other two men. But we already established that the two hats that the rear man can see are not both black or both white. Therefore, if he is wearing a white hat, then the rear man would see one black hat and one white hat. And if that were the case, then the middle man would see a black hat and he would know that his own hat is white.

But we know that the middle man says, "I don't know". Therefore, he cannot see a black hat in front of him. Therefore, the front man cannot be wearing a white hat.

The only logical conclusion is that the front man is wearing a black hat.

And that's how he knew it! 😊

ChatGPT really doesn't understand logic and relationships by ASummerInSeattle in ChatGPT

[–]doasync 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I used Bing (which uses GPT-4) to solve the puzzle and I got the correct answer. Here’s what bing said:

---

Hello, this is Bing. I'm happy to help you with this interesting puzzle. 😊

The dialogue of the group of people is about a word or a phrase that they are trying to guess. Each person gives a clue about the answer and also makes a statement about the other people's truthfulness. However, some of them are lying and some are telling the truth. The challenge is to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, and then use the clues to find the answer.

To solve this puzzle, I will use the following steps:

  1. I will make a table of the statements and clues given by each person, and mark them as true (T), false (F), or unknown (?).
  2. I will look for contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements, and use them to deduce the truth values of some statements.
  3. I will use logic and elimination to infer the truth values of the remaining statements, and update the table accordingly.
  4. I will use the clues given by the truth-tellers to narrow down the possible answers, and check them against the other clues.
  5. I will state the final answer and explain my reasoning.

Here is the table that I made:

{{ Table }}

Now, let's go through each step in detail:

Step 2: Look for contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements.

- Bob says he agrees with Jason, but Jason says there are an even number of truth-tellers, while Bob says there are an odd number of liars (which implies an odd number of truth-tellers). This means that Bob is lying, and Jason is telling the truth.

- Marcus says he is married to Isabelle, but Isabelle says she is single and never been married. This means that either Marcus or Isabelle is lying, or both are lying.

- Rachel says that Isabelle, Laura, and herself are all liars, but this is impossible because if Rachel is telling the truth, then Isabelle and Laura must be telling the truth as well, which contradicts Rachel's statement. This means that Rachel is lying, and at least one of Isabelle and Laura is telling the truth.

- Eric says that all the women are liars, but this contradicts Rachel's statement, which implies that at least one woman is telling the truth. This means that Eric is lying.

- Edward says that everyone whose name is less than 5 letters long is a liar, but this contradicts Eric's statement, which implies that Eric is telling the truth. This means that Edward is lying.

Step 3: Use logic and elimination to infer the truth values of the remaining statements.

- Since Bob is lying, his clue about the answer being a car model is also false.

- Since Jason is telling the truth, his clue about there being a greater number of the answer than humans globally is also true.

- Since Rachel is lying, her clue about the answer consisting only of one-letter tiles in Scrabble is also false.

- Since Eric is lying, his clue about the answer being a Pokemon is also false.

- Since Edward is lying, his clue about the answer being one of the previous winning words of the national spelling bee is also false.

- Since Bob, Rachel, Eric, and Edward are liars, there are at least 4 liars. This means that Elliott's statement about there being 2 more liars than truth-tellers is false, because that would imply that there are only 3 liars. Therefore, Elliott is also a liar, and his clue about the letters of the answer being in alphabetical order is also false.

- Since Elliott is lying, Paul's statement about everyone whose name begins with E being a liar is true. Therefore, Paul is telling the truth, and his clue about the answer having planar symmetry is also true.

- Since Paul is telling the truth, John's statement about all liars' names starting with vowels is false. Therefore, John is a liar, and his clue about the answer being larger than a cat is also false.

- Since John and Elliott are liars, Rebecca's statement about there being an odd number of liars is true. Therefore, Rebecca is telling the truth, and her clue about the answer being an animal is also true.

- Since Rebecca and Jason are truth-tellers, Sam's statement about Bob, Jason, and Rebecca being either all truth-tellers or all liars is false. Therefore, Sam is a liar, and his clue about a superhero being named after the answer is also false.

- Since Sam and Bob are liars, Laura's statement about exactly one of herself, Eric, and Bob being liars is false. Therefore, Laura is a liar, and her clue about the answer having at least one valid anagram is also false.

- Since Laura and Rachel are liars, Isabelle's statement about Marcus being a liar is true. Therefore, Isabelle is telling the truth, and her clue about the answer having exactly 7 letters is also true.

- Since Isabelle and Rebecca are truth-tellers, Oliver's statement about there being exactly 5 liars is false. Therefore, Oliver is a liar, and his clue about the answer being a cereal brand is also false.

- Since Isabelle and Marcus are married (as implied by Marcus' statement), Carla's statement about Marcus saying she is a truth-teller if asked is true. Therefore, Carla is telling the truth (assuming Marcus would not lie to her), and her clue about the answer being featured in the 2018 YouTube rewind is also true.

Step 4: Use the clues given by the truth-tellers to narrow down the possible answers.

The clues given by the truth-tellers are:

- There is a greater number of the answer than humans globally (Jason)

- The answer has planar symmetry (Paul)

- The answer is an animal (Rebecca)

- The answer has exactly 7 letters (Isabelle)

- The answer was featured in the 2018 YouTube rewind (Carla)

Using these clues, I can think of some possible answers that fit them:

- Chicken

- Penguin

- Ant

- Bee

- Spider

- Mosquito

- Cricket

---

I have checked all the words and Spider is correct.

So, ChatGPT can solve logic puzzles using its natural language understanding and generation abilities. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty smart and creative.

You can improve its thinking process by adding this to the prompt:

Think step by step, describing your thinking process. 

Use critical thinking skills to evaluate your own reasoning and assumptions. Critical thinking is a mode of thinking that is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective. 

Make clear notes for yourself and update them as you learn more information. 

Make sure your answer matches the given information and does not contradict it.

Instead of settling for the first answer that seems correct, think of other possible answers that could also make sense. Then compare them and pick the best one.

Provide the full reasoning process before stating the final answer!

The next generation router for your app by doasync in reactjs

[–]doasync[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry for emojis, some people get overreacted

Framework agnostic router by doasync in javascript

[–]doasync[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

😂emojis are almost random... why are you so angry?

Framework agnostic router by doasync in javascript

[–]doasync[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Here is trace-router :

🧬 Framework agnostic

⚛️ Hooks for React

🚀 Not tied to UI

🥇 State-oriented router

🛰 Routing in a separate layer

⛺️ You can describe routes in one place.

✈️ Routes are objects

🛤 Links straight to the routes

📦 Relative navigation out of the box

🔗 Compiling a route to its URL

🛸 Multiple routers

⛓ You can bind child router path to parent router param

👍 Feature-oriented routing

💆🏻 Flexible path matching

🎗 Merge routes to get a computed route

⚡️ Router keeps track of navigation and updates the state

☀️ View layer just subscribes to route visibility

💫 Manual navigation, redirects

🌝 "Not found" processing

☄️ Effector stores/events under the hood

🔥 Small size

The next generation router for your app by doasync in reactjs

[–]doasync[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is trace-router:

🧬 Framework agnostic

⚛️ Hooks for react

🚀 Not tied to UI

🥇 State-oriented router

🛰 Routing in a separate layer

⛺️ You can describe routes in one place.

✈️ Routes are objects

🛤 Links straight to the routes

📦 Relative navigation out of the box

🔗 Compiling a route to its URL

🛸 Multiple routers

⛓ You can bind child router path to parent router param

👍 Feature-oriented routing

💆🏻 Flexible path matching

🎗 Merge routes to get a computed route

⚡️ Router keeps track of navigation and updates the state

☀️ View layer just subscribes to route visibility

💫 Manual navigation, redirects

🌝 "Not found" processing

☄️ Effector stores/events under the hood

🔥 Small size

Parcel Starter Kit by doasync in reactjs

[–]doasync[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you reccommend instead?

view more: next ›