Perhaps this is the point of the original article, but couldn't one say that the actual "smallest uninteresting number" is actually the second smallest unintere

Perhaps this is the point of the original article, but couldn't one say that the actual "smallest uninteresting number" is actually the second smallest uninteresting number? The first smallest uninteresting number is only interesting by virtue of being otherwise uninteresting, but once we have a second number that is only interesting by virtue of being uninteresting, it's no longer a novelty to be uninteresting. So it's legitimately uninteresting.