I just don't get the point. If you can process content much faster than it was meant to be played, it doesn't mean you're learning much faster than you could, it means the novel information density is low. Any content that can be sped up that much without loss is not worth listening to in the first place. You're just skipping the trite cliches, filler, and obvious facts.
I can read fast, and I typically go through fluffy NYT bestseller nonfiction at 600 WPM. But when I do this I constantly have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time. When I read a good book full of new ideas, I barely go at 150 WPM, but the time always feels well-spent.
It is like the infromation doesn't have the time to settle in my memory, despite me understanding it.
It's maybe because when things are slow, I can use the dead time to think about the implication/corner cases of what's being said.
This is inaccurate. « Des territoires » would be more accurately translated as 'some territories' or just 'territories', the author is thinking of « les territoires ».
This is how it was phrased:
>(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
any native enlgish speaker can read the declaration and see from the contest that it clear that all territories taken during the war are meant.
The Israelis came up with this facetious excuse to try to encroach on more land.
indeed, when one says "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park."
it does not mean, for any sane person that some dogs shouldn't be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.
Also:
"it is an accepted rule that the various language versions must be considered together, with the ambiguities of one version elucidated by the other"
Plus, the reason that Israel must give back the territory is the prohibition of acquiring land by force.
If you can't acquire land by force. you can't acquire any land by force. it's illogical for the rule to only apply on some but not all land taken by force.