Yes.

Science is built on a shared, standardized base of knowledge. Laying claim to a standard term to mean something entirely incompatible with the actual definition makes your paper objectively incorrect and without merit.

The paper is not entitled to redefine a scientific term to be completely incorrect.

A bit is a bit.

No, I am saying that I do have a meaningful working knowledge of how the brain works, and information theory, beyond the literal surface level it would take to understand that the headline is bullshit.

You don’t need to be a Nobel prize winning physicist to laugh at a paper claiming gravity is impossible. This headline is that level. Literally just processing a word per second completely invalidates it, because an average vocabulary of 20k means that every word, by itself, is ~14 bits of information.

Argument to authority doesn’t strengthen your argument.

A piece of paper is not a prerequisite to the extremely basic level of understanding it takes to laugh at this.

Understanding it is active thought. And processing the words, as words with meaning, is required to formulate a relevant response.

The more than 10 bits each word is are part of your active thought.

The headline is completely incompatible with multiple large bodies of scientific evidence. It’s the equivalent of claiming gravity doesn’t exist. Dismissing obvious nonsense is a necessary part of filtering the huge amount of information available.

But I did read the abstract and it makes the headline look reasonable by comparison.

The point is that it’s literally impossible for the headline to be anything but a lie.

I don’t need to dig further into a headline that claims cell towers cause cancer because of deadly cell signal radiation, and that’s far less deluded than this headline is.

The core concept is entirely incompatible with even a basic understanding of information theory or how the brain works.

(But I did read the abstract, not knowing it’s the abstract because it’s such nonsensical babble. It makes it even worse.)

It doesn’t matter what it says.

A word is more than 10 bits on its own.

There is literally nothing the paper could say and no evidence they could provide to make the assertion in the title anything less than laughable.

There are hundreds of systems in your brain that are actively processing many, many orders of magnitude more than ten bits of information per second all the time. We can literally watch them do so.

It’s possible the headline is a lie by someone who doesn’t understand the research. It’s not remotely within the realm of plausibility that it resembles reality in any way.

He’s not.

Executive function has limited capacity, but executive function isn’t your brain (and there’s no reasonable definition that limits it to anything as absurd as 10 bits). Your visual center is processing all those bits that enter the eyes. All the time. You don’t retain all of it, but retaining any of it necessarily requires processing a huge chunk of it.

Literally just understanding the concept of car when you see one is much more than 10 bits of information.

There’s no plausible way to even encode any arbitrary idea into 10 bits of information.

It’s the same for the wallpaper; just not visible really. But it bounces between a variety of my other pictures, too.

The fact that 99% of LED Christmas lights are mini strobe lights.

Yeah, I never really have anything I want for gifts because it’s either way over the top and not something I’m going to have someone buy for me, or it’s reasonably cheap and I just buy it way before anything anyone would give me a gift for.

But I’ve been buying myself a bunch of books lately, including some of the nice versions of Brandon Sanderson books. They’re expensive enough that I can’t just buy them all. I got a signed leatherbound copy of Elantris for Christmas.

Reputable places won’t print shit that infringes copyright.

lol flour is the only thing I care enough to weigh. Volume is just so insanely inconsistent.

I’m not talking about the amount.

I’m saying they’re much less predictable, so nonsense like having obvious signs saying “don’t be stupid” can affect their ruling regardless of how necessary it should be.

Lawsuits often go in front of juries.

Civil juries do whatever the hell they want.

Every step a company takes to make sure that a reasonable customer will avoid hurting themselves makes it more likely a jury will blame an unreasonable one who hurts themselves being unreasonable.

Well, they let me order my lists (and actually display the order). That’s good.

No way to bulk add books to a list? Not so good.

Worth keeping an eye on, though.

lol yeah that’s all nothing.

Except the bottle openers, “you can’t bring that on a plane” is perfectly fine. But you don’t need to play make believe that it’s some big bust either. Just let her throw it away or leave and get someone to take it for her or whatever and move on.