Archive 10 academic presentations from ~/Downloads/slides/ (2014-2018)

- PhD defense slides (defense.key, Nov 2018) → phd_defense/
- Master's defense on MOOC peer evaluation (Dec 2014)
- ENGI 600 data-driven program repair (Apr 2015)
- COMP 600 data-driven program completion (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)
- COMP 600 Program Splicing presentation + feedback + response (Spring 2018)
- Program Splicing slides in .key and .pdf formats (Spring 2018)

Each file has a .md transcription with academic frontmatter.
Skipped www2015.pdf (duplicate of existing www15.zip) and syncthing conflict copy.

documents/academic/presentations/comp600_feedback_2018.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+category: academic
+type: academic
+person: Yanxin Lu
+date: 2018-03
+source: comp600_feedback_2018.pages
+---
+
+# COMP 600 Presentation Feedback
+
+Peer and instructor feedback on Yanxin Lu's COMP 600 presentation (Program Splicing), March 2018.
+
+Good pace for the motivation part which explained the problem really well.
+Stance is not good. Kept moving. Kept looking back to the screen.
+Not really smooth in the beginning of the talk.
+Related work is a little bit long which takes a lot of time.
+Energy is not enough when introducing program splicing.
+Good pace for the demo. But I was moving all the time. Need to stand still.
+
+Kept moving in the architecture slide, and kept looking back.
+Good gesture for demonstrating the KNN search.
+PDB went a little bit fast. Need more details.
+
+Enumerative search could be faster and don't need to show the process of enumeration.
+Kept moving all the time in the benchmark problems.
+Not very smooth in the benchmark problems.
+
+Too much text in the user study slide.
+
+Not smooth in the user study result slide, especially in the sieve problem.
+
+Stance is not good through out the talk.
+Went a little bit fast at the end of the talk because of time.
+
+**Best feature**
+1. PDB and related work could be shorter.
+2. The motivation, example makes the problem easy to understand.
+3. Mention the limit of the related work.
+4. Good demo
+
+1. Confident
+2. Good voice control and eye contact
+
+1. Tables were well explained.
+
+1. Good handling questions.
+
+**Message/organizations**
+1. Need more technical details.
+2. Source code license has to be covered
+3. Demo was not very useful while a few slides can do the work.
+4. Programming problems might not reflect the real-world improvements.
+5. Explain more on the experiments.
+6. Need statistically significance and power for the hypothesis test. Too few samples.
+7. Not clear what the contribution is
+8. Not mention limitations of the work.
+9. The example in the demo might not be a good one.
+
+**Delivery**
+1. Keep his stance
+2. Not showing enough passion
+3. Louder
+
+**Visuals**
+1. Architecture flowchart could be made better