Add some more questions around struct kinds.

[aDotInTheVoid]

These probably wont get people who worked on the compiller, but it's still a kinda dark corner with non-intuitive behavior if you don't know about the separate type/value namespace.

Probably worth re-ordering at some point so they're not right next to eachother.

Also IDK if the explanation makes sense.

[Noratrieb]

Suggested change

	class values [^not]). Therefor both of these declarations can co-exist.
	class values [^not]). Therefore both of these declarations can co-exist.

when are they not?

[aDotInTheVoid]

Because they can't be higher ranked wrt type params.

IE I can write

    fn identity<T>(t: T) -> T {
        t
    }
    
    // Ok
    let x: fn(i32) -> i32 = identity;

but not

    let y: for<T> fn(T) -> T = identity;

Not sure if this is worth including.

[aDotInTheVoid]

Whereas in haskell you can do

foo :: forall a b. (forall t. [t] -> t) -> [a] -> [b] -> (a, b)
foo sel as bs = (sel as, sel bs)

or to be higher kinded also:

foo :: forall a b f. (forall t. t -> f t) -> a -> b -> (f a, f b)
foo sel a b = (sel a, sel b)

[Noratrieb]

I like the questions, good job Alona :3
some typos and small comments, and another thing: you inserted linebreaks after a set amount of characters. I'd prefer to instead let the lines get a bit longer but only insert linebreaks in semantically relevant places like after periods or commas. That makes it easier to change the sentences in the future and also makes the diffs nicer (semantic linebreaks).
that appears to be the existing style of the explanations too

[Noratrieb]

uwu