Not either of them but I use Power-hell in my daily job to automate a lot of active directory related things, I can also confirm it can piss you off and has quite a few 'isms or gotchas. The way some things handle single and double quotes can drive you literally insane.
I really like the illustrations and explanations. When can we expect the natural transformations chapter?
And also I think there is a small typo at the end of second to last paragraph.
"At the same time we have the category of groups, for example, which contains the category of monoids as a subcategory, as all monoids are groups etc.". The roles of monoids and groups are actually reversed - all groups are monoids, but not all monoids are groups.
I don't think you can learn your way to the cutting edge of science in a lifetime with project-based learning. In my experience it just takes too much time.
I don’t think you are at the cutting edge if you are not comfortably getting your hands dirty with it, to the point that you can clearly see what is missing and how you can further improve it.
The issue is that the "low hanging fruits" such as general relativity have been picked, the high hanging fruits require at least some kind of ladder, nuts and bolts. Perhaps a theoretician should not wire themselves the electromagnets or write the ladder logic of the PLCs running the experiments, but going up and down the stack certainly helps one's understanding and appreciation of the larger scope.
You could be hard-pressed to find a more project-based learning project than the Large Hadron Collider/James Webb Space Telescope. No amount of Gedankenexperimenten could ever prepare you for the cutting-edge science&engineering at LHC/JWST/ITER/etc.
Same, but it's only natural after studying inner product vector spaces. Also being comfortable with some calculus is needed to be able to overlook the technicalities of this construction and focus on the actual idea.
I could see that varying from individual to individual.
For me, I'm quite confident it would negatively impact my skills as I would naturally start trying to offload that mental load to the computer and forget how to do it.
"Clojure for brave and true" has in my opinion an excellent section on Clojure tooling in emacs (which I wish i read when I was starting out with emacs).
It is a strength (they do cover tooling), but also a weakness. Throwing beginners into learning emacs, as well as a new language, and likely a new programming paradigm, is a massive ask. I think it is mistake for Clojure that Brave and True is the most recommended book to start out.
I feel like another application which is maybe not talked about all that much is that knowing category theory gives you power to name some design pattern, google that, and tap into that vast mathematical knowledge that humanity already discovered. This becomes incredibly valuable once you become aware of how much you don't know. Or maybe just write that bare manimum code that works, idc.
Oh and also when you recognize your design to be something from ct its probably quality. Shit code cant be described with simple math (simple as in all math is simple, not as in math that is easy to understand).
Drink enough wine and you will start to lean towards "critically acclaimed" wines by yourself after a while. What's "enough" varies from individual to individual.
My note above, enough relates more to frequency than volume. Exposure to one serving (a serving is not a full glass!) two or three times a week matters more than five or six servings once or twice a month.
