That's also clearly not a clean incognito search, as it has your previous search with his name included.
Note that there's no reference to his real name.
The only reference to his real name in your screenshot is the first entry, which is purple and removable because it is coming from your browser's session identity history. If this was in fact in an incognito tab, it's likely you had one or more incognito windows simultaneously open somewhere else where you had searched for him, which carried over into your new tab.
I did this on a computer I don't usually use in an incognito tab.
He is not "the target audience" for this sort of thing.
It was mostly just annoying that they were presenting theirself as being a civil, good-faith rule abider, while also being clearly thrilled at "cleverly" outing Scott Alexander.
I even felt a bit of sympathy for him before I realized his fan reddit has invoked his name many times. I even suggested in public I'm a fan of some of his writing. But this is just ridiculous.
As far as I can tell, we're in violent agreement?
1) The weaker one, about link finding
2) and furthermore a stronger one, which I quote in my response.
The stronger one being, "you need at most middling Google-fu to find his real name from his pseudonym if you're motivated."
That stronger claim is still weaker than your "his real name is immediately available to anyone who knows the name Scott Alexander." That said, perhaps we have different thresholds for immediate: mine was spending ~60 seconds searching for his pseudonym and trying to find his real name from it, and I failed to find it. I think it's likely I could within 10 minutes, but I'd put that clearly in the territory of my intermediate claim.
I regret to inform you he cannot escape his reactionary blog just by wishing it so. If anything, this escapade will draw more attention to him. The NYT is not required