One of my own favorite explanations of meter in English is Timothy Steele's All the Fun's in How you Say a Thing: An Explanation of Meter and Versification [0].
I'd be interested if anyone has other recommendations?
I've been programming for a long time and had to learn R a few years back for a series of projects. The documentation and community seemed to me, as a newcomer, to be very focused on how to solve particular statistical and modeling problems, and I was almost always able to do what needed to be done relatively quickly. (Python documentation and communities, in contrast, span all kinds of applications that can be difficult even for an experienced programmer learning Python to sort through and evaluate. I can also imagine the migration to 3.x has been a challenge for newcomers.)
Although I enjoyed learning and using R, as a CS person I was bothered that I understood how to do X in R, but I had no clue about what was happening when I did X. I found this paper to be particularly useful in describing R from a CS perspective: http://www.lirmm.fr/~ducour/Doc-objets/ECOOP2012/ECOOP/ecoop...
In case you are a casual observer or are new to Scheme and are wondering why this might be particularly important to the language, wikipedia explains:
"The R6RS standard has caused controversy because it is seen to have departed from the minimalist philosophy [of scheme]. In August 2009, the Scheme Steering Committee ... announced its intention to recommend splitting Scheme into two languages: a large modern programming language for programmers, and a subset of the large version retaining the minimalism praised by educators and casual implementors;"[1]
Perhaps the history of Scheme standardization itself has something to teach us about the challenges and rewards of openly balancing a wide range of interests and agendas over the long term?
I have had the same experience after deleting my account several years ago (for different reasons). I do keep wondering if it will pop up as an issue, so I'm very curious about other people's experiences when not participating in LinkedIn.
Yes, I agree. The history of philosophy is an important part of philosophy, not all of philosophy. I studied the subject nearly 30 years ago and can only recall the history courses as having a decisive Western bias (though not a monopoly). I believe all the courses were correctly labeled, and I can remember at least one embarrassed explanation that other traditions could not be included.
I am curious how the bias might affect topics like contemporary epistemology, logic, or the philosophy of science or of mathematics?
I'd be interested if anyone has other recommendations?
[0]: https://www.ohioswallow.com/book/All+the+Fun%E2%80%99s+in+Ho...