Lots of fun, though I think "less than nothing" oversells (undersells?) it. I appreciate the author's taking time to explain somewhat at the end, rather than leaving the reader just to feel stupid if they miss, for example, the reference to Smullyan. I also can't help wondering if Dana is just a choice of name, or a cheeky reference to Dana Scott.
Yeah, "less than nothing" is definitely an exaggeration. There's a similar article called "Programming With Nothing" that is about lambda calculus, so my intent is conveying the idea that you can get even simpler than that.
