I think you are speaking past the person you're talking with. Yes, as a skill, it's probably got limited utility for her. However, we learn more about how the brain works by studying people whose brains don't work like everyone else's brain, and trying to figure out how they're different. Therefore, it's people who want to learn more about how the brain works who "[truly care] that she can remember what was playing on Netflix three years ago"

>Yes, she’s remembering all these things, but I’m wondering about all the things she isn’t either remembering or in control of remembering that would have otherwise been within here sphere to have remembered.

Yes, now it kind of makes sense. But why assume her ability is counterbalanced by having trouble remembering other stuff? Nothing of the short is hinted at in the article, and if she had any such issue, I'd expect her or her parents to have noticed. And even if that was the case, why would that make it any less interesting to study?

"Passively absorving banal shit" and remembering it would be any less important to study than some conscious ability to chose what important thing to remember. The latter might be more apparently useful to the person and in general, but a super memory mechanism is interesting enough to study on its own, even it just concerns past lotto numbers.

It's also not the case that "all the examples given are out of the tabloid headlines" - the article gives all kinds of other examples (from a "memory game" as a kid, to answering questions about what she wore, ate, etc at random dates on past years).

In any case, this Nash person has a beautiful mind!