I found this really useful. I've had multiple, unsuccessful attempts at grokking category theory, and never really felt I got it. The closest was John Baez's online course [0].
I don't have a particular aptitude for maths (as an engineer by training, maths makes sense to me as a tool for solving problems - not as a source of study in and of itself).
Most all the introductions to CT I've read get into the maths very early. That's entirely understandable. I personally find I need a more intuitive description of the concepts first, using non-mathematical exemplars. OP is, thus far, the introduction that best articulates things for me in those intuitive terms.
That's in no way a criticism of more formal/abstract treatments: I've great admiration for those who naturally create and assimilate things that way. I wish I was one.
I don't have a particular aptitude for maths (as an engineer by training, maths makes sense to me as a tool for solving problems - not as a source of study in and of itself).
Most all the introductions to CT I've read get into the maths very early. That's entirely understandable. I personally find I need a more intuitive description of the concepts first, using non-mathematical exemplars. OP is, thus far, the introduction that best articulates things for me in those intuitive terms.
That's in no way a criticism of more formal/abstract treatments: I've great admiration for those who naturally create and assimilate things that way. I wish I was one.
[0]https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1717/welcome-to-...