Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't be sure that this is authentic, i.e. actually from John Nagle.

It is amusing that you doubt that "John Nagle" on Stack Overflow is M. Nagle, but don't express any doubt that "Animats" here on this WWW site, and indeed this very discussion, is M. Nagle. Surely the reverse stance is the more logical, if one has no idea what "Animats" is.

It is odd that some people give more credence to a pseudonym, or in this case a company name, than to using one's own name.

Among people who would pretend to be a given well known person, surely more of them know that person's real name than something that would make a plausible pseudonym. Or in any case, more of them would choose it.

And if someone thinks a pseudonym is a particular famous person, they must have a reason, which is unlikely to be weaker than just assuming a normal name is accurate.

I'm not up to doing a Bayesian analysis right now, but I feel like one could show it makes more sense to doubt an unverified name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com