This is also a stylistic choice that the New Yorker magazine uses for words with double vowels where you pronounce each one separately, like coöperate, reëlect, preëminent, and naïve. So possibly intentional.

▲

lucaslazarus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, this is exactly correct, and I will die on this hill. Additionally, I don't like the way a hyphenated "techno-optimism" looks and "technOOPtimism" is a bit too on-the-nose.

	▲	nullsanity 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

runarberg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That makes sense[1] but it prompts the obvious question: does this style write it as typeö then?

1: Though personally I hate it, I just cannot not read those as completely different vowels (in particular ï → [i:] or the ee in need; ë → [je:] or the first e here; and ö → [ø] or the e in her)

▲

lucaslazarus 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No. Firstly because it is spelled “typo.” Secondly you typically use the diaeresis to tell the reader to not confuse it with a similarly spelled sound or diphthong. So it tells a reader that “reëlect” is not pronounced REEL-ect, “coöperate” is not COOP-uh-ray-t, and “naïve” is not NAY-v.

	▲	losvedir an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Because written English makes so much sense normally. God forbid someone has to figure out the ambiguous pronunciation of those particular words. It seems like a silly thing to provide extra guidance on to me.