according to this visualization of the idea: https://www.maximiliankiener.com/digitalprojects/time/
The visualisation sidesteps the problem by starting at year one. You can also add arbitrary constants or other tweaks, but then the idea lose its elegance and you can make it say anything you want.
One could say that's because I lacked the experience to interpret and store my sensations at the time, and that those were gradually gained, but to my view that's not a refutation but actually reenforcement of the argument. I'm still learning higher level abstractions every day; the tools to more efficiently store sensation are gathered as new sensations are gathered.
When I was 14, every day at work was radically different than the last. At 44, they're pretty much the same. When I was 14, 8 hours was like forever. These days, if you asked me at 9PM, there might be a 2-3 second delay for me to remember if I worked at all that day.
Hence there's still a point to trying to live longer, even if the value of each additional time period decreases.
Anyway, that's if you agree that model! There's a couple of other things I'd consider without even examining it's core assumptions: memory fades over time - time earlier in my life might not contribute as much to my perceived time, as recent time does; what if you spend your early life just getting to the place you want to be (resources, self-development etc)? Extra time in that place could be very valuable!
As life goes on novelty of new moments goes down.
You could say this explains or underlies the Janet model.
But one can seek out novelty to slow down time. In the extreme you could “reset”, move away from everything you know, and start from scratch.
I have no evidence for any of this other than my own perception. Does anyone know where to find more discussion on this topic?