31–40 of 152 posts
Simple psychology would lead me to guess that it is you Jacques. If I wanted to tell how easy it was to identify an anonymous comment, then I'd make one. I'd then publicise it, and challenge other people to crack it. Maybe I'm being too clever for my own good...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I did and failed...
How do you know you failed?
On the other hand that isn't proof of anything, but I think the changes are higher that someone will own up that didn't do it to throw sand in the eyes of the searchers than the reverse.
But then again, maybe I'm a sucker and I believe that people in general are honest and trustworthy. So far that seems to me to be a better assumption than the reverse.
i believe it is vaksel.
[1] http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3468.en.h...
Do you keep a corpus of all HN comments? I doubt PG would appreciate all of us hammering the HN server to collect the data.
i believe it is vaksel.
Definitely a possibility... but based on what ?
edit: oh right, i also looked at the fact that he was posting comments on HN around the time that the one in question was posted. a lot of my other candidates didn't meet that data point.
First I want to say that I don't agree with publicly disclosing the "identity" of people who doesn't want to be found. I also don't think doing so "originates" from any good personal quality. That being said, I do remember this [1] talk from last CCC to be interesting from a technical standpoint. [1] http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3468.en.h...
The original poster could log in and disclose who found him first.