b3

"b3 is an uninspiring move that prepares to bring the bishop to b2 and attack the center later." 

Uninspiring? I strongly disagree. 

Same. I'm not sure what's so uninspiring about b3.

We could use the same language about any move, I suppose.

"c5 is an unspiring move that prepares to bring no piece into the game, and plans to attack the d4 square later." (about the Sicilian)

And so on, and so forth ... The statement itself doesn't really say much of anything.

On a personal note, I rather enjoy the pressure against the e5 square (and the g7 square, by extension, which is right at the heart of Black's castled kingside) that a bishop on b2 can bring. That bishop feels less assertive on f4 or g5, where it points at arguably "quieter" targets ...

While 1.b3 might inspire someone playing like Bent Larsen, he will normally end up playing random bad moves because it is very difficult for the average Joe to understand the hypermodern chess principles and apply them properly.

for the longest time, i almost gave on up on b3 not because i thought it was bad or anything, but half the time, i wasnt getting the exciting battles i wanted unless black played very specific lines (trying to keep big center as black, or allowing doubled c-pawns in reverse nimzo positions).
i think you need a certain level of risk taking and creativity to play 1.b3 well, otherwise, you will reach a lot of games with boring equality.

actually the thing i like to see the least when i play 1.b3 is actually b6 .Its really hard to spice things up and black has the choice to keep symmetry for a while or diverge when they feel like it.