Today marks the first occasion that I saw the title of a post on HN, then saw that it came from Medium, and on the basis of its domain name decided that it would probably be a fluffy and superficial treatment of the topic alluded to in the title, where typography (ironically enough) and a very generous x-height gave the impression of substance to something that was in point of fact really barely worth writing or reading in the first place.
Having noticed this thought arise, I decided I better go through to read the article and see if I was right.
Also 'friendly-looking' isn't joining together two adjectives , it's making a compound adjective.
Most "-ly" descriptors are adverbs, and it is indeed incorrect to compound "-ly" adverb-adjective combinations with a hyphen. (For example, "finely-chopped garlic" is incorrect). But adjectives that end in "-ly" can be hyphenated. ("Friendly," "elderly," "dastardly," "squirrelly," "burly," "lovely," "ghastly," "deadly," and so on).
These days writers often choose not to hyphenate them, as compound-hyphenation in general is dying out in contemporary usage. It often feels old-fashioned and fussy in informal writing. But there is no rule prohibiting the compound-hyphenation of adjectives with "-ly" endings.
That is so arbitrary. Your source and the OP's source are linguistically prescriptive. Prescriptivism is unscientific and it leads to endless spats between groups of people that think the way they learned to speak and write is somehow superior. A better approach is to look at the reality of how native speakers of a language use, pronounce, and write words (descriptivism) and agree that some uses are standard, and some are non-standard.
Here are some screenshots of collocation searches involving post-adjectival 'looking' from the excellent COCA...
'good':
http://s9.postimg.org/r4cok4spb/good_looking.png
'nice':
http://s9.postimg.org/kcm9ha3pr/nice_looking.png
Here's one for your author's example, "well known" (or "well-known"):
http://s9.postimg.org/64wksmr0v/well_known.png
Notice that the reality bears almost no resemblance to the prescriptive idea of what's correct and incorrect.
The "Friendly-looking" in "Friendly-looking couch" is an "adjective + participle" construction, which is hyphenated before the noun.
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf
Oh, and is "looking" really an adjective? It must be: this author is lecturing us about English usage, I can't believe she wouldn't tell adjectives and verbs apart.
Among other things.
"looking" is a actually a present participle; this form functions as a part of a compound verb used in forming continuous tenses, as a noun, and as an adjective.
'look', when not part of any phrasal verb ('look at', 'look for'), is actually a copula in English. A copula is a linking verb, the paradigmatic example being 'to be', that can occur in the pattern (subject) (copula) (adjective).
That's what is happening in sentences like
"The man (subj) looks nice (adj.)"
Whereas with any noncopulative verb we need an adverb
"The man ran quickly.", "The stocks fell rapidly.", etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_copulae
What's interesting is that if you look at the list of English copulae above, you'll notice that many of them ('smell', 'sound', 'feel', 'taste', and 'seem') are capable of the same kind of inversion as 'look' in their participle forms. So...
"The chicken tasted funny." and "The chicken is funny tasting."
"This song sounds sad." and "This song is sad sounding."
It's a little more awkward to think of examples with 'seem', which is curious since it's the only one of those six copulae mentioned that isn't sensory in meaning.
TL;DR: 'looking' is definitely not a standard adjectival participle, since it can't function as an adjective on it's own, but instead needs to follow another adjective. Another excellent example of how words do not conform neatly to part of speech categories.
Does anyone else find that they know dozens of Unicode code points purely by accident? Other useful ones in that block are U+2018, U+2019, U+201C and U+201D, the left and right (first and third) single and double quotation marks...
In the end, though, I really wish everything supported Vim's digraphs. (e.g. Ctrl+K l * produces λ.) I know even more of those than I know numeric codepoints…
What I really want is for my keyboard to act like my mobile phone keyboard — a long press to see similar characters. Anybody care to code it?
key <AE11> { [ minus, underscore, endash, emdash ] }; defaults write -g ApplePressAndHoldEnabled -bool falsePlease, stop making things more more complicated than they need to be! It is so f*ing tiresome.
Next question: should you use the same character for unary minus and binary minus? That is, to represent negative numbers and subtraction? ;)