Even the inventor of Bitcoin can’t hide

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...

I immediately thought of this piece, especially the analysis on the writing style of each person.

On one hand, it is clear that the mathematical tools for confidently attributing authorship of texts were already present without LLMs. But it is striking that LLMs seem to very accurately identify authorship, through whatever process it might be, with no need for a data scientist in the loop.

Other than the uncannyness, I wonder what implications this will have. Public writing is still public; maybe we will require stronger proof of authenticity from an author (but this is arguably in place already; eg. personal websites, social media profiles, etc.). But for, say, public writing that must conserve anonymity, would people pipe their thoughts and writing pieces through a sort of fuzzing (local) LLM, that would strip text of identifying characteristics?

Public writing that must conserve anonymity is either going to disappear or going to require witnesses, notaries, or web-of-trust truestees, i.e., "flesh buffers." In a world with LLMs, every piece of writing that can't authenticate itself in some way will automatically be considered rage bait, eyeball fishing, or, at best, fiction. Just my two cents.

The attribution is likely incorrect. People have been trying to accuse him for many years, and the evidence is not very strong. This article is the strongest yet, but still commits many stylometric fallacies, and other kinds.

This is an old claim, and one that can't be proven.

The claim is old, not the article.

I recently added E2E tests in my game too. One of the benefits is that I can have my agent verify its own work by asking it write a test and look at screenshots. Which means I can say “I’m going to bed, implement this and verify it with e2e tests” and it gets further along than it used to

I wish they would too. I’d respect them more for the transparency. I think everyone’s enshitiffication sensors have rightly been dialed up over the years. So without explanations for the regressions it just feels like another example

Leave today

Anthropic has a QA process? I run into bugs on the regular, even on the "stable" release channel

Aren’t old buildings usually draftier? So less CO2

I've found old buildings to have generally worse air quality than newer buildings because of a lack of mechanical ventilation.

You are correct

Hypotheticals fear him

House plants make too minor a difference to be worthwhile.

Opening windows is better but if you want a more energy efficient solution you should invest in a HRV/ERV

To my understanding, as with most carbon sequestration efforts, house plants are a long-term planning horizon solution. Filling your house with plants won't fix your biggest spikes in the CO2 in your home, but they'll lower the overall floor/median/average over a large enough span of time (months to years).

Relates to the long running "joke" that the best way to sequester CO2 today is to plant new growth forests 50 years ago.

“We live in the age of computers,” Eaton said. “It must be possible for Customs Service to program its computers so it doesn’t need a manual review.”

lol