LOL. That's right. Well observed. Just the "origins of C" would be a lot more honest. I also liked the commentary on theory and practice, which could have something to do with C and UNIX and the whole story.
The article seems to oppose a mainstream view of pornography. Such mainstream opposition, properly done, as is the case in the article, is refreshing. I seem to learn more by reading nonmainstream views like that and somehow this very statement seems obvious.
I think that's about taste. It so happens that I find simple writing more elegant as well. It feels to me that if I can't do it simply it means I don't master the subject enough --- indeed that's a theorem taking literally the "I" in the conditional. I've noticed that the people I consider bad writers sometimes criticize my writing for precisely that --- too simple. But I actually think that they enjoyed what they read; in other words, they did not convince me. (Also, because I consider them bad writers or non-writers, it's hard to take seriously what they have to say.)
It was cool to read that Paul Graham edits a lot over the days. I do the same. I reserve enough days to put the text off so I can forget it. My observation is that if I still remember the text, when my eyes see the paragraphs, they don't quite read them --- they remember what's there, recovering an illusory version of the paragraphs. When I'm able to forget them, I see them again for what's really there, and then I notice the problems.
Nobody seems to have mentioned a book that appeared here 19 days ago.
[Letters of a Radio-Engineer to His Son (1922)]((https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23358380)). It explains electricity without any technical jargon. Pretty nice first read. His atomic model is outdated, but that doesn't seem to interfere with anything. After reading the first initial letters, you might have a greater motivation to dive into more complicated texts.