The aid is definitely for the audience. Otherwise, the presenter would just have some notes.

The slides don’t need to be a book. But I struggle to think of a technical topic that doesn’t have some visuals that would make talking about it easier to follow.

Edit: and I think it’s presenters thinking the aid is for them that leads to such awful slides.

Maybe for something non-technical that would be reasonable. But if you’re talking to a single slide for ~30 minutes, it’s unlikely to be an adequate aid for most people. Either the content is really complex and would benefit from additional slides that focus on each relevant part. Or a lot of what you’re talking about isn’t really represented, and people are likely to get lost without something to show what it is you’re describing.

With reasonable, actionable steps. If you don’t have those, then they kind of have a point, don’t they? It’s like the Newton’s flaming laser sword of politics.

I’m saying people who don’t play this credit game but otherwise are good financially also think it’s dumb. Not just bad risks.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt. They also don’t have good credit. They’ve never missed a payment. They’re good for the money. But they don’t have a history showing that because they’ve never needed that.

The writing of the paper is generally a trivial part of the work. Each technical paper is supposed to be a succinct summary of months or years of technical work.

Does 80 technical papers in 2.5 years seem kind of off to anyone else? That’s more than a paper every 2 weeks. Is there really time for meaningful research if you’re publishing that often? Is he advising a lot of students? If that’s the case, is he providing the attention generally needed for each one? Is his field just super different than mine?