3 ms·
Even very fast typists are unable to do stenography without a machine specialized to the task. Speech, in turn, can usually be understood at two or even three
by samatman 2y ago
Even very fast typists are unable to do stenography without a machine specialized to the task. Speech, in turn, can usually be understood at two or even three times the rate at which it is ordinarily produced. Meanwhile, I can read several times faster than I can understand speech, even at the highest speedup which I find coherent.
Ergo, 10 bits per second just doesn't hold up. It's an interesting coincidence that a reasonably fast typing speed hits that rate, but humans routinely operate on language at multiples of it.
- wat10000 2y agoI don’t think a difference of this magnitude meaningfully changes what the paper is talking about. They already have other human behaviors in their table with bit rates up to 5 times higher. Even if you set it at 100bps it wouldn’t change much. They’re addressing a difference of eight orders of magnitude. Making it seven instead of eight isn’t all that important.
- freehorse 2y agoNo but 10 bits/sec is better clickbait of a title, science my ass.