The article says "During Q&A, the future attacker asked a few very legit, on topic questions".

Sure, but it doesn’t state how they knew that the speaker was the attacker… perhaps this was one of the details that they couldn’t tell us about, but absent that, it is fair to question why they are so sure. Especially if the video is public and the questioner could be identified.

This raises further questions - if they aren’t worried about unmasking their attacker, why not go ahead and name & shame them in the article, instead of giving away just enough information to enable a witch-hunt?