gp asked us what the blog is arguing, doesn't seem too unwarranted to assume they didn't comprehend? Or am I missing something?

Also, just fwiw, I really tried but I am truly having trouble comprehending what you are saying, or at least how it bears on the article? It is 8-9 short paragraphs long, can you like point to wear he demolishes the straw man? Or like what does that even mean to you? Isn't it a good thing to demolish a straw man? Given that it is fallacy?

Trying to be charitable here parsing this: I don't think Dunning-Kruger really speaks to one's ability to convince right? Doesn't it really manifest when we don't actually need to be convincing to anyone? This is the definitional thing about it really: you are precisely not aware you are "faking" it, you think you are doing really great!