I believe the appropriate technical term is "bollocks" rather than "crap", see https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf.
To be clear, I think that slide deck will be looked back upon as naive. In particular, it makes the classic mistake of assuming the size of number factored should be growing smoothly. That's naive because 15 is such a huge cost outlier and because quantum error correction has frontloaded costs. See [1] and [2] for details.