Consider normal text compression and you're left with a few bits at best for most of those "fast talkers/listeners." And the human brain is very good at compression.
Yes, but in order to measure its bitrate accurately you need to tell us whether that compression is gzip, zlib, zip or 7zip. They don't all produce the same results.
If we are going to be utterly ridiculous about this conversation, let's at least be complete.
How would that be relevant? The only relevant aspect for this discussion is that language is tightly compressible, which noone here has challenged yet. But I've seen noone come up with a true example where you'd be actively processing high entropy data at a rate that disagrees fundamentally with the paper.
I feel like this is splitting hairs and moving goalposts. The pro side will always have some sort of explanation why it’s 10 bps or less without a way of actually proving it.
I can type at a rate faster than 10 bits/ second (about 2 characters / 16 bits! what a slow rate! I'm well above that, at least 24 bits/second!) and you aren't compressing that to less.
And that's while also moving my hands in extremely complex ways to perform the task, looking around my office, listening for threats / wife, observing the breeze from my fan, twiddling my toes on the balance board I don't use...
It's clickbait/ragebait. Well done to the title writer.
