Aspire doesn't provide parity with production. Locally it has its own container host and production deployment is outside of Aspire. Aspire has a bit more flexibility to run things that are not containers.
It's not just the books it is the whole method of teaching. I remember learning the steps to calculate an eigenvector without a single comment on why one would ever want to do that. I think it is done so that the educator can claim "this course teaches all of calculus and linear algebra and quantum mechanics". To actually explain things properly would require more modest course goals.
There is an alternative economic argument. Wise have the same product (money transfer) at a fraction of the cost. It could be that all the marking was a complete waste of time.
https://datalust.co/seq (my employer) uses a custom database built with Rust. We are about to remove the last C# database code because, as the previous commenter noted, garbage collection and databases don't mix.
Over the next few years I expect we will see a lot of new databases written in Rust.
I gave up when a friend defined DevOps as "the entire software development lifecycle". There is a trend of this sort of regression to the mean. Vendors want to jump on a keyword, so they fight to expand the definition to include their thing. Pretty soon everything is "DevOps".
Several peopls have commented that this is really just CQRS.
The approach I described above has nothing to do with CQRS, in fact it directly contradicts CQRS. The design of features is intended to combine commands and queries. If the controller is restricted to commands and queries then the logic of combining those operations ends up in the controller which is exactly what we need to avoid.
Tough question. My anecdotal observation is that the business model you described appears to have limited success. If it were me I would pursue high-end consulting opportunities as a tile5 specialist + use the exposure from a successful open-source project to generate other opportunities.