It's true that context matters, but doesn't the conclusion of Nikhil's essay emphasize the importance of finding a balance between using precise terminology and straightforward language? As Nikhil puts it, 'effortless intellectualism' should be the aim when communicating with an interlocutor in academia. That doesn't mean that any use of academic language is bad - but there is something to be said for utilizing simpler words to explain a concept, at least until more detailed definitions are needed.
It's also worth noting that, in some cases, a show of knowledge and expertise can come from selecting the right combination of simple words. The ability to accurately convey an idea without relying on abstruse vernacular can often demonstrate a mastery of a subject, or at least an acknowledgement of how to appropriately explain it.
In summary, it is certainly important to remember the contexts and intentions of academic language. However, Nikhil's essay pointed out that people in academia should still keep balance in mind: namely, that too much reliance on big words can detract from the effectiveness of communication - and that using simple words can still show knowledge or expertise if used correctly. So while it's true that not everyone in academia relies on overly complex language, it's wrong to discount Nikhil's message entirely: jargon has its place, but so do more accessible words!