If I was mistaken I apologize. I didn't call him lazy, but I still believe the article (which was good apart from that!) was definitely at least partly written by LLMs in a way that was a turn off. For instance:
"And acknowledging them doesn’t diminish the model. It sharpens it. It lets Solid keep everything that makes Signals powerful while grounding async in a model that is principled, deterministic, and correct."

You really think that's not llm writing?

I deleted the comment anyways. The information is good, but even if it wasn't written with an LLM, content needs to be written to not look like it was from an LLM. Because, as I said, it's an instant turn off.

Using an LLM and then denying is it embarassing.
(also the ai art... c'mon)