Sorry to rant about the presentation rather than the content, but this blog is another great example for horribly inaccessible typography. Unlike other sites I

Sorry to rant about the presentation rather than the content, but this blog is another great example for horribly inaccessible typography. Unlike other sites I've seen linked on HN this one uses a reasonable body font size of 16px, i.e. the browser default font size. However it uses a font that at 16px renders as the equivalent of the Windows default sans-serif font at 14px. What's worse, block quotes are rendered at a calculated 13.6px, which makes it the equivalent of the default font at a minute 11px! I know most HN users will likely not care about this as HN comments are set to a mere 12px (making HN the only site on the web I regularly visit that I have to zoom in to at least 150% to use comfortably) but this just borders on cruelty. It's not even good from an aesthetics point of view as at a fixed width of roughly 30rem (working out to roughly 70 characters per line) the article occupies less than 1/3rd of the screen. There's clearly some intent behind the design as it uses a non-standard font and makes other seemingly deliberate choices but every choice seemingly just compounded on making the site harder to look at.