Thanks for the feedback!

I'm planning a few changes pending feedback right now:

- Removing the glitch navigation on the top nav bar. People seem to think it's too annoying, and I will concede it's not technically Brutalist although it only takes a few lines of CSS

- Changing the default theme to one of the greyscale themes, which are easier to read and arguably more functionally brutalist, and more aligned with the aesthetics of concrete Brutalist architecture
- Better handling of back button on Android devices
- A color theme inspired by Windows 3.1

To address concerns about whether this design is truly brutalist I recommend first revisiting the principles of Brutalist Web Design, as well as more contemporary usages of the term.

The most notable description was set forth by David Bryant Copeland (see https://brutalist-web.design):

- Content is readable on all reasonable screens and devices.

- Only hyperlinks and buttons respond to clicks.

- Hyperlinks are underlined and buttons look like buttons.

- The back button works as expected.

- View content by scrolling.

- Decoration when needed and no unrelated content.

- Performance is a feature.

Another common interpretation of brutalism is aesthetic, reacting to overly complicated user interfaces by creating simpler, more direct ones. Tailwind CSS (https://tailwindcss.com), one of today's most popular CSS libraries, promotes this approach in its component examples. There's also a neat library I've seen recently called "Neobrutalism Components" for React that I like (https://neobrutalism-components.vercel.app), providing components with a similar look and feel to Gumroad. This might more accurately be called 'Neo-Brutalism,' as noted in the comments.

A more engineering-centric interpretation of Brutalism focuses on form, structure, and efficiency, drawing significantly from brutalist architecture principles. Apart from the user interface itself, most mobile, desktop, and web applications are extremely bloated and often perform worse than sites from 10 years ago did. While one HTML file might be "less brutalist" than the original HN site, it is substantially more brutalist than any HN mobile app in existence, and offers nearly identical functionality.

A broader interpretation of brutalism, which could be termed 'Meta-Brutalism,' is embodied in the overall experience on this site through UX flows. Yes, in the strictest sense, the original HN site is more Brutalist in many ways, but it only shows 30 articles at a time and does not function as a PWA. For this site, the experience of reading 10 stories is arguably less brutalist, but for quickly browsing through several pages and skimming articles (which is how I read HN) it is a lot faster, and in my opinion, more Brutalist.

My primary inspiration was addressing software and tool bloat in UIs rather than strictly adhering to every principle set forth by David Bryant Copeland. I don't find it convincing that this site "isn't brutalist" compared to really any other experience apart from the Main HN site, and I would argue the overall experience is more brutalist in its performance and scrolling behavior.

As a side note: I generally don't like Brutalist architecture that much although I believe it is unfairly maligned. I visited the Salk Institute once and enjoyed it though (https://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-l...).