I don't really get the point of this post. Yes naming things is hard, but the fact that these two words are similar is actually a good thing, despite laypersons getting them confused, because they are both functionally and implementation-wise closely related. The confusion is not going to be solved with trying to relabel the concepts. The author never actually illustrates the harm caused by this confusion either. My guess is they ran into something like installing a package that didn't cover their desired needs, attributed this to the "auth" name and instead of moving on decided to write about it.
>> "The canonical solution is to call these "authn" and "authz", the n and z evoking the longer words."
>> "The canonical solution is to call these "authn" and "authz", the n and z evoking the longer words."
or we could just use the longer words?