I was going to post some comment about how the comments here were all overly negative for what was obviously just someone having fun. Then I read the comments in 2012.
Jesus Christ.
In any case, it's sad to me how when people on HN see someone having a bit of fun or messing around, their first instinct is to knock it down.
The comment threads, unfortunately, are subject to the tendency (perhaps common among technical people?) to point out discrepancies, gaps, claims that aren't true, and so on. I don't think it's out of a desire to knock anything down. It's just that the mind is quicker to notice those things and then there's a "hey I noticed something" impulse to report them. The intention is helpful, but these comments don't compose very well... or rather, they do: into a sourpuss mélange.
I'd love it if we could get this community to really grok the value of inquisitive or playful comments that have an opening-up effect instead of a narrowing one. That would be much better for the spirit of intellectual curiosity. Perhaps it awaits us in the evolution of the hivemind.
The website is not presenting this as just having fun, but rather making the strong claim that it is actually better than the writing system we've been using.
Making such very strong claims ("I've come up with something better than what civilization has produced thus far...") naturally invites debate, especially when they seem implausible on their face and aren't backed up by a very solid argument. There would be a lot fewer negative comments if this were presented like "hey, look at this neat game I made up..."
I’m not seeing your quote on the page, and I think that drives my point home: you have created a narrative for the post that doesn’t exist. I mean, come on. They’re called “dotsies”! Does that sound like the name of a font designed to replace ours, by someone who honestly thinks they’ve advanced civilization? Or does it sound like someone having fun?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14825571 (2017, 22 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3601687 (2012, 98 comments)