3 ms·
> Anyways, I ended up dumping SuperMemo because once my item database > grew I became too lazy to spend 30 minutes (or more!) each > day going through t
by kanzure 13y ago
> Anyways, I ended up dumping SuperMemo because once my item database
> grew I became too lazy to spend 30 minutes (or more!) each
> day going through this drill.
Yeah, same happened to me. But I didn't catch on so soon, and I found myself spending 2 hours/day on it before I started to scratch my head.
When I started, it wasn't obvious, but clearly there is an upper limit on the rate of new entries that the system can support. Plus, you have to factor in time spent doing data entry. I think these factors combine to make for a life-time limit on the number of entries. Suppose you use SuperMemo for 20 years (7300 days) at 2 hours per day (14600 hours) and 100 new entries per day. That's only 1.4 million unique entries.. (this analysis is severely lacking and deserves more thought).
Insert here some humbling story about the benefits of improving meta-aspects of how and what you pick to spend time on. Obviously, inserting everything you ever come across into SuperMemo is a bad idea.
Anyway, then I realized this was all stupid because I remembered everything anyway. So now I'm off SuperMemo. Hooray memory!
- gwern 13y ago> I think these factors combine to make for a life-time limit on the number of entries. Suppose you use SuperMemo for 20 years (7300 days) at 2 hours per day (14600 hours) and 100 new entries per day. That's only 1.4 million unique entries.. (this analysis is severely lacking and deserves more thought). That's fairly similar to Wozniak's estimates: http://www.supermemo.com/articles/theory.htm http://www.supermemo.com/articles/theory.htm In the FAQ he estimates that probably 200k is the max for most people. > Anyway, then I realized this was all stupid because I remembered everything anyway. So now I'm off SuperMemo. Hooray memory! Fortunate for you, but the rest of us must make do with our fallible memories. :)