I feel like maybe they didn't read the article and misinterpreted the double-negative in the headline.

GP here (GGP?), I read the whole article.

Mentioning their background is not necessarily an appeal to authority fallacy. It’s just metadata.

> metadata.

Exactly. Sort of like getting a picture and the metadata says "Nikon". Probably that picture didn't come from midjourney.

I read "fun stories" to refer to cyclops, male pregnancy and the deep mystery of the real purpose of the appendix. That's a plausible critique to me, and one which is compatible with the appendix being still useful. Same for the first comment you mention. Yes, it's just the ends of things that come together, but life makes use of that real-estate anyway. It's just not critical, and there is only a slight dent in immunity when removed.

They used paragraphs to separate complete thoughts.

Note, GP explicitly mentions the following in their last paragraph, and make no claims that the appendix is useless:

> This idea that the vermiform appendix is some deep evolutionary mystery is sort of a low point of medicine that occasionally pokes its head up. It ranks up there with male pregnancy, and various birth defects that have given rise to stories of monsters, like Cyclops. Fun stories, completely useless.