Eine neue Studie der Universität für Bodenkultur beziffert erstmals, wieviel Kohlenstoff zwischen 1900 und 2015 langfristig oder kurzfristig in menschlichen Artefakten wie Gebäuden gespeichert wurde. Die Menge des dauerhaft gespeicherten Kohlenstoffs hat sich seit 1900 versechzehnfacht. Sie reicht aber bei weitem nicht aus, um die globale Erhitzung wirksam zu beeinflussen. Die Möglichkeiten, Boot in Gebäuden zu nutzen, um der Atmosphäre CO2 zu entziehen, werden bisher nicht genutzt. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000208522/co2-entnahme-durch-holzbau-ist-bisher-nicht-relevant-fuer-den-klimaschutz

Studie: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad236b

The answer shouldn't necessarily be to figure out how to quantify the online unseen portions of the learning process.

Similarly how might one assess the end results of things which are non-literate?

Korman, Maria, Vadim Tkachev, Cátia Reis, Yoko Komada, Shingo Kitamura, Denis Gubin, Vinod Kumar, and Till Roenneberg. ‘COVID-19-Mandated Social Restrictions Unveil the Impact of Social Time Pressure on Sleep and Body Clock’. Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (17 December 2020): 22225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79299-7.

Couture, V., Dingel, J. I., Green, A. E., Handbury, J., & Williams, K. R. (2020). Measuring Movement and Social Contact with Smartphone Data: A Real-Time Application to COVID-19 (Working Paper No. 27560; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27560

Original post is here.

This explanation should be combined with 24 Days of GHC Extensions: Rank N Types (see related hypothes.is note).

This was very neatly put, and forall above is also spot on.

My main issue with this book is that the difficulty is exponentially increasing, and by "keeping it simple" (i.e., trying to use simple terms) it is even harder to do a proper research.

For example:

1. The name of this chapter

This chapter should have been called Explicitly quantified type or Explicit universal quantification as it is too general as is, and doing a search to get to know more when someone has no formal/previous functional programming background, makes very hard.

Most importantly though, even if Haskell not mentioned, the word "explicit" would have been important.

It is also more about generic parameters than about quantification itself, and forall is kind of introduced but it is totally misleading.

2. forall

The post “forall” is the type-level “lambda” (saved) is the best, most succinct explanation of forall that I ever found. Unfortunately not before going down the rabbit hole.. (See links below.) One still needs to know about

• typeclasses
• generic parameters
• constraints
• what pragmas are but after that, it is straightforward.

(Jordan's Reference section on forall also doesn't help much.)

forall is also mandatory in PureScript (which is also not mentioned when introducing it), and I believe a comparison (the way the above post did) with Haskell is important, but at the right time. At least Jordan's Reference tries to put it off until later, but still before explaining concepts required to understand it.

3. The "rabbit hole" links

These are all good resources, but not for uninitiated mortals, and at a lower level (such as where I am now) they raise more questions than answers.

• Explicit forall (r/purescript reddit)]

  (Started here initially, but the single sentence there prompted a search for scoped type variables and rank-n types (or Rank N types).)

Peterson, David, and Aaron Panofsky. ‘Metascience as a Scientific Social Movement’. Preprint. SocArXiv, 4 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4dsqa.

Rosati, G., Domenech, L., Chazarreta, A., & Maguire, T. (2020). Capturing and analyzing social representations. A first application of Natural Language Processing techniques to reader’s comments in COVID-19 news. Argentina, 2020 [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3pcdu

How was the protein quantified? I assume UV absorption or Bradford assay was used.