Truly terrible APIs never originate from one mind.
Instead they're the result of a whole bureaucracy of people each of whom have to inject their own particular requirements, coding preferences and "what if in the future..." guesses.
Oh, yes, I remember reading that while back. As Joel says, "if you write convoluted, dense academic prose nobody will understand it and your ideas will be misinterpreted", which doesn't let Simonyi off the hook completely.
As for Apps Hungarian, I was just discussing this the other day on a forum devoted to John Ousterhout's A Philosophy of Software Design. In Chapter 14, "Choosing Names" Ousterhout discusses a case where a variable named 'block' was used in a place where there were both physical and logical blocks, both integer types. His suggestion, which isn't wrong, was to use different variable names for different kinds of blocks, making it possible for a programmer to tell if a logical block variable was being used in some physical block handling code. This is similar to Joel's example of using 'rw' and 'col' prefixes for variables that are both integer types.
When I see a convention like this, I ask, "why can't they be different types?". In modern languages you can define new types easily, and define different interfaces or APIs to operate on the types. With 'physicalBlock' and 'logicalBlock' types, or 'row' and 'col' types, programmers can lean on the compiler or interpreter to prevent many errors. Beyond looking wrong to the programmer, the code is wrong, and won't compile or interpret correctly, provided there is a reasonable type system for the language.
The obvious concern is a proliferation of types, and yes that can happen when taken to extremes. One area where Joel's example makes a very strong case for types is 'us' and 's'. Strings are handy, but also the wrong abstraction. A 'SafeString' type would very clearly communicate the abstraction at the proper level: the thing in question is not a string, it's a representation of encoded user input. An attempt to assign a SafeString to a plain old string would be an error. Passing a string to a function that declares a SafeString would be an error.
There's even a name for using ints and strings when different types would be better: Primitive Obsession. A sign of this obsession would be passing around a user ID and password as strings, and a corrective would be a Credential type that encapsulates both ID and password types, and includes the necessary parsing and validation on creation. This eliminates an entire class of errors much more strongly than a convention where every string that contains a password has a 'pw' prefix, and userID strings are prefixed with 'userid' or just 'id'.
Of course, if the language doesn't provide useful typing, then naming conventions are essential. In languages with good type systems, always be asking, "does the language's primitive type really represent the abstraction in use here?"
Charles Simonyi comes to mind.