I think this comment is a slight bit too critical for an OP that's obviously in the genre of playing with ideas. (Most of everything2 seems in this genre.)
> a large factor of it would actually be that our brains don't store repetitive events very well
Depends on what you mean by "very well". Aggressive data compression is usually considered a good way of storing things.
My criticism of the article is so harsh exactly because it does not represent itself as merely an idea, it instead attempts to convey the impression of being a groundbreaking scientific discovery.
> Depends on what you mean by "very well". Aggressive data compression is usually considered a good way of storing things.
We're fundamentally in agreement on this. It is, however, not lossless compression, and that's in part where I would assume the speedup comes from.
> a large factor of it would actually be that our brains don't store repetitive events very well
Depends on what you mean by "very well". Aggressive data compression is usually considered a good way of storing things.