If you read the article instead of just the headline, you will find that almost all the names discussed are names people do still have. Jack, Dick, Bob, Nick, Bill, Robin, etc. are nicknames specifically called out in the article.

The article does finish with Hob, Daw, Wat, and Gib. But most of the names highlighted are ones that are still in use. (I personally also have found that a lot of people don't realize Harry is a nickname for Henry, like anyone who wasn't alive for JFK doesn't know "Jack" is "John")

> a lot of people don't realize Harry is a nickname

Does no one know Shakespeare any more?

  I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
  Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
  Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
  Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

I had actually read Henry IV, Part 1 in school many decades ago but in that play the young prince Henry was (mostly) called Hal – not to be confused with his opponent, Henry Percy, better known as Harry Hotspur.

Off-topic: I wonder if this the first recorded use of the phrase “the game’s afoot”?

The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to claim that somebody did not read the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But if you're going to do it, the one time it's really misplaced is when you're claiming the author of the article didn't read it.

It's actually even more relevant here than it appears, in that the rest of the comment is true: half the article really is about nicknames that people do still use, so there was no reason for the author to object. But that point is lost thanks to the snark.

The first part of the article explains the pattern, where a nickname becomes a patronymic surname, using familiar examples.

This sets up the main point, which is that the pattern holds so reliably that when you meet a patronymic surname you can often infer the existence of a nickname, even when it's one you don't recongize.

Hence the title.

This is the best possible comment (besides perhaps the author replying that "Yes, I did read it after I wrote it")

To be fair, I missed the double negative in "isn't a nickname nobody has any more" too until I saw this comment and looked closer.

You seem to be criticizing someone for not having read an article he wrote himself. Not only is this general class of complaint specifically forbidden by the site policy here, it represents a sort of combination of incompetence and malice that I find extremely distasteful. I doubt I am alone in this.

Another example for Harry: nickname for Harcourt. Used in 2 episodes of the original Star Trek series for Harry Mudd (Harcourt Fenton Mudd).

"Harry" didn't actually become a common nickname for "Harcourt" until midway through the 22nd century.

Harry also for Harold!?

I was thinking along the lines that these days “Harry” is (mostly¹) a stand-alone name and no longer used as a nickname for Henry (and this was something I only realised in the past couple of years).

Anyhow, I really enjoyed the article and learning about the origins of surnames, e.g., I didn’t know that “Peters” should be understood to be in the genitive case and I’d never have associated the surname Dixon with being “Richard’s son” – even though I’m familiar with Dick as a nickname for Richard.

¹ Other commentators have pointed out that Prince Harry was actually christened as Henry.

I would tend to assume that "Harry" was short for "Harold", not that it was a standalone name.

Well I know someone that has that as a nickname.

double negative unwinding...