interesting that the most balanced one is extremely similar to the default, which is not so:
> \#198 (\texttt{QNBRKBNR})is the most balanced, with both evaluation and asymmetry near zero... Remarkably, the classical starting position-despite centuries of cultural selection-lies far from the most balanced configuration.
That formation is pretty close to the standard position though. Just swaps a Queen and Rook. It puts the Queen in the corner, a less aggressive position with less options to develop.
I've only played a little 960, but these queen in the corner positions seem to often lead into more closed positions.
Yeah, agree, but in the setup you mentioned, 1.b3 and 1. b4 are both strong moves, because it basically forces the game to develop kingside from the get-go.
Seems the opening can get really sharp, or basically a race to bunker via 1.Nf3
Completely agree- the coverage of MUNI + BART is actually pretty good (with some notable exceptions) and in my experience (ymmv obviously) less stressful than driving and seeking parking.
I can't say I know exactly what that journalist had in mind, but my understanding is that he was referring to the fact that younger generations (in the geopolitical west) aren't that interested in cars and both the market and legislation are responding to this shift.
On the contrary, I have spent thousands of hours interacting with MSFT support.
What I'm getting at with my post is the dev teams support has to talk to, which they just forward along their responses verbatim.
A lot of MSFT support does suck. There are also some really amazing engineers in the support org.
I did my time in support early in my career (not at MSFT), and so I understand well it's extremely hard to hire good support engineers, and even harder to keep them. The skills they learn on the job makes them attractive to other parts of the org, and they get poached.
There is also an industry-wide tendency for developers to treat support as a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots, but at the same time they don't arm them with detailed information on how stuff works.
> What I'm getting at with my post is the dev teams support has to talk to, which they just forward along their responses verbatim.
But the "support" that the end user sees is that combination, not two different teams (even if they know it's two or more different teams). The point is that the end user reached out for help and was told their own experiences weren't true. The fact that Dave had Doug actually tell them that is irrelevant.
If we're going to call it gaslighting, then gaslighting is typical dev team behavior, which of course flows back down to support. It's a problem with Microsoft just like it is a problem for any other company which makes software.
I've never seen the same behavior from any other software supplier.
Almost every software company out there will jump into their customers complaints, and try to fix the issue even when the root cause is not on their software.
I can't say I've seen it with every vendor. Or even internal dev team I've been an internal customer of - but I've seen it around a lot.
You might be lucky in that you've worked at companies where you are a big enough customer they bend over backwards for you. For example: If you work for Wal-Mart, you probably get this less often. They are usually the biggest fish in whatever pond they are swimming in.
> \#198 (\texttt{QNBRKBNR})is the most balanced, with both evaluation and asymmetry near zero... Remarkably, the classical starting position-despite centuries of cultural selection-lies far from the most balanced configuration.
reply