This is the reason that installing a 2-mile bus lane on Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco took several years. They took advantage of the opportunity to replace the hollowed out logs that had served as one of the city’s most critical water mains since the 1906 quake.
Well in that case it sounds like you're shipping multiple versioned instances of your software for different clients, which is much closer to shrink-wrapped software than it is to e.g. gmail.
I’m barely halfway through the post, but I am already compelled to advocate the author to start pitching the USGA on using this to replace manual course ratings. Also, OP runs a labor of love in golfcoursewiki that democratizes basic info like green contours that are usually locked away behind annual subscriptions. They deserve a shoutout.
Some info for non-golfers: every golf course has a “course rating” and a “slope.” Course rating is essentially the “true par” of the course for a “scratch golfer” (a golfer who normally shoots par). The “slope” is a measure of how much worse less-talented golfers score compared to a scratch golfer. These numbers are used to compute a golfer’s “handicap,” which lets them compete fairly against more- or less-skilled players in tournaments.
Course ratings are currently assigned by people measuring distances from the tee box to various points of trouble and then to the green. This makes course length the dominant factor by far in terms of course rating. If we adopted something like scoofy’s inverse strokes gained metric, course ratings would become far more accurate, and they would become much cheaper (asymptotically approaching free) for courses to obtain. (Currently courses must pay to have their course rated.)
My previous best idea for fixing this was just to use the scores reported by players every day to nudge the rating toward its “true” value. But that would be subject to a lot of conflation that this simulated approach is not.
I was puzzled by your claim that Condé Nast was forced to vacate its headquarters last year. After some Googling, it seems you are referring to their English offices. Condé Nast is still headquartered at One World Trade as it has been since 2014, and is still owned by the Staten Island-based Advance Publications as it has been since 1959.
I'm not defending anything? Replying to someone doesn't mean I hold an opposite viewpoint. You don't have any clue what my opinion is because I haven't posted it.
I think the real question here is why after this many comments you still haven’t taken a position other than generally arguing with other people. When people do that, especially online, it generally means they are being deliberately opaque with their opinions. It’s intentional. So the reasonable thing to conclude is that you disagree until you say otherwise. If that’s not your goal then try a different approach here.
I agree that it’s frustrating to be misinterpreted or misrepresented, but if you fail to represent yourself at any stage (which you seem to agree you haven’t done) then that’s what’s going to happen. So say what you think or just move on. I think at this point we can stop playing these rhetorical games.
reply