> 1. As mentioned in another comment, X and Y can't be independent and correlated at the same time
And as I replied to that comment, "sorry, my bad - Y - X and X will be negatively correlated."
> 2. The point of the article is to show that you can replicate the results of the DK paper starting from purely random data
You (and many others) are using "purely random data" as if it's always the null hypothesis and using it to cast doubt on the results. But assuming as the null model 0 correlation between skill and self-assessment of that skill makes no sense to me, and is in fact more extreme than the claim DK is making. So in other words, sure, if you assume something more extreme than the claim and generate data based on this assumption, you'll get the same effect and more extreme.
And as I replied to that comment, "sorry, my bad - Y - X and X will be negatively correlated."
> 2. The point of the article is to show that you can replicate the results of the DK paper starting from purely random data
You (and many others) are using "purely random data" as if it's always the null hypothesis and using it to cast doubt on the results. But assuming as the null model 0 correlation between skill and self-assessment of that skill makes no sense to me, and is in fact more extreme than the claim DK is making. So in other words, sure, if you assume something more extreme than the claim and generate data based on this assumption, you'll get the same effect and more extreme.