No, it really was the obvious explanation already at the time of that message. You'd already been shown that this post was not present on the author's blog, no

No, it really was the obvious explanation already at the time of that message. You'd already been shown that this post was not present on the author's blog, nor linked to on their active Twitter account. Both of these things were noted in the GP. Whose account is not green, and whom you were implying was making up a conspiracy theory about this post being fake. As for the post itself, it was on an otherwise empty Medium blog (you didn't need to look into how many xs the name had, just note that this blog had no other posts at all). On the other hand, the only link to legitimacy the post had was that it was posted by an old HN account. But it's also not a very active account. It's easy to see why and how somebody who had hijacked the HN account would use to to give legitimace to the fake. Your alternate theory that the Twitter account was actually compromised is preposterous. There's no motive for it, and it's hard to see how the timing would work out (the attacker using the HN account for misinformation gets to choose the timing of the misinformation; an attacker hacking a Twitter account to suppress the post doesn't).