Just because

It appears I had more than 30k emails in my inbox. Some might consider that a tad excessive. But don't worry, only 3500 are unread.

This is certainly happening in astronomy. Over my (not long) career I have seen a change in how data is treated. In particular public data. Nowadays there are a lot of rules of how to use it and who should be invited to use public data. 10-12 years ago I remember just inviting PIs if we liked them

Its no yet 1000/pub but getting several tens or up to 100 is now very easy

In observational astronomy I think It is very hard to keep short author lists while trying to be fair to the people that planned and performed the observations. In those i'm involved (as lead or co) It is very normal to use a minimum of 4-5 sources of data, each of them with their own policy

The visit continues. Today i'm back at the Observatory of Geneva after more than 6 years.

I shouldn't need to hide stuff that opens a path to a future potentially important result because senior scientists cannot keep their cool for a while (or few years, in this case).

I would assume listening to me about the shortcomings of my own work would be a good idea. That should be considered a lower limit of shortcomings. They should assume more shortcomings than those I explicitly and preemptively explain, not less.

At least I like the presentation I've made lol now off to get dinner

Soon, we will need to get high-schoolers to write the papers, to make sure they have 5-10 when they start their MsC...

At my institute we reached a point in which without a first-author paper it is almost impossible to enter the PhD program. I think it's absurd.