Although point #1 is true, I find it to be a slightly superficial advice. It's like saying "if you want to be happy, find a job that fulfills you". Sure, everyone wants to be able to focus on good projects before papers, so that the papers come naturally. If you can do that, congrats! You won the game; be proud and enjoy it. However, the truth is that the way to get there is dark and lonely and full of terrors, and not everyone can do it. All academics (especially junior ones) are constantly in the middle of an ambiguous, contradictory discourse: you must produce a lot, but you also must produce high-quality output. Your environment, literally everyone around you, wants to have your cake and eat it too. As you get more experienced you learn to navigate this and keep the good parts while ignoring the bad ones, but for young researchers this can be extremely taxing and stressful. In order to "focus on projects and not papers" you have to literally swim against the current, usually in a very very strong current. Not everyone has the presence of mind and attitude to do it, and to be honest, it's not fair to expect that either.

So, here are some points and comments I offer that go in a slightly different direction (although, like I said, if you managed to get there, congrats!):

* You can write a good paper without it being a good project. One thing does not exclude the other, and the fact that there are many bad papers out there does not mean that papers themselves are bad. You can plan your work around a paper, do a good research job, and write a good scientific report without having to have an overarching research project that spills over that. Sure, it is great when it happens (and it will happen the more experienced and senior you get), but it's not necessarily true.

* Not thinking about the paper you'll write out of your work might deter you from operationalizing your research correctly. Not every project can be translated into a good research paper, with objective/concrete measurements that translate to a good scientific report. You might end up with a good Github repo (with lots of stars and forks) and if that's your goal, then great! But if your goal is to publish, you need to think early on: "what can I do that will be translated into a good scientific paper later?" This will guide your methods towards the right direction and make sure you do not pull your hair later (at least not as many) when you get rejected a million times and end up putting your paper in a venue you're not proud of.

* Publishing papers generates motivation. When a young research goes too long without seeing the results of their work, they lose motivation. It's very common for students to have this philosophical stance that they want to work on the next big project that will change the world, and that they need time and comfort and peace to do that, so please don't bother me with this "paper" talk. Fast forward three years later they have nothing published, are depressed, and spend their time playing video games and procrastinating. The fact is that people see other people moving forward, and if they don't, no amount of willpower to "save the world" with a big project will keep them going. Publishing papers gives motivation; you feel that your work was worth it, you go to conferences and talk to people, you hear feedback from the community. It's extremely important, and there's no world where a PhD student without papers is healthier and happier than one with papers.

* Finishing a paper and starting the next one is a healthy work discipline. Some people just want to write a good paper and move on. Not everyone feels so passionate about their work that they want to spend their personal time with it, and push it over all boundaries. You don't have to turn your work into your entire life. Doing a good job and then moving on is a very healthy practice.