You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, mate. .NET is like Java. It's behind critical systems you haven't heard of because they're not flashy or glamorous, so you have no idea how prevalent they actually are.
The other posters are right. Most .NET projects today are backends, where it's used similarly to how Java is used.
You'll find a lot open source leaders, and CEOs of companies like framework are not progressive, they are libertarian. Which people mistake as progressive because it's often very socially liberal.
Trying to pressure them won't do do anything, because goes against libertarian values to force collective values on individuals.
It misses the point: if you split the universe in two identical parallel universe, but then take the same individual and in one universe train them 2h per week, and in the other universe, train them 8h per week, do you really think, whatever the test is, the second one will not perform better?
This is the point of training: the more training you have access to, the better you do. If it was not the case, then the notion of school itself as a way of training people to be able to think by themselves will not have any sense.
And that is just training. Even with the same amount of class hour, kids who don't have to worry about take care of their siblings, of the house chores, or of even having access to decent relaxing conditions will get higher score even if they are in fact less smart.
Yes, more training will invariably give better outcome for a given individual. But some people are just incredibly more talented than others due to genetics alone.
If you want to build an elite sport team, I don't think you want to artificially put less athletic kids for the reason they had to work harder.
I think the question is why do we need elite higher education at all. Maybe we don't. In my view, we want to funnel the brightest people there and make sure they get access to the best resources.
That's the point: people with more training that reach high grade are LESS GOOD than people with low training that reach lower grade.
You are saying that you don't want less athletic kids being accepted artificially. That's exactly the point: the score does not correspond to the talent, you have to correct for it: to compare 2 persons on their merit if they have had different training, you need to calibrate to get a variable that correspond to the merit.
reply