It's not that we have no sense of humour, it's that:
a) Almost all of us have seen it before.
b) A comment with just an opaque link doesn't really add anything to the conversation.
c) That comic doesn't even apply in this case, as Oklab is not trying to be a universal standard covering all use cases. Its intended purposes are quite specific and different from the other colour spaces.
It's not nearly as clear as you purport, and thus, the link is funny and appropriate - there's nothing on that page to suggest its _not_ the best for all use cases - the sum total of its argument is its better in every case.
However, the data isn't 100% there if you work in the spaces, i.e. I'd want to understand more how the CAM16 gradients were generated (CAM16 has two correlates for lightness and another three for 'color', saturation, colorfulness, and hue. CAM16UCS 'only' has colorfulness. How could the CAM16UCS gradient get 'saturated' more quickly?)
[FWIW, thanks to prove the HN crowd has strictly no sense of humor what-so-ever...]