@HS "She had less family responsibilities" : one might (with a stretch) construe this as meaning the responsibilities were similar in number but less onerous; it is perhaps just a bit vaguer than "fewer responsibilities", although I wouldn't care to argue the toss.

"She had less responsibilities" does get several hits on google.

Whether one approves is one's own problem.

My take on it is that "fewer" + uncountable noun is nonsensical, as "fewer" implies countable number.

BTW I suppose you guys realise you can upvote your own comments! ;=))

I would suggest that proficient English readers do not read by sounding out each syllable to understand the word; each word becomes a sort of symbol pretty much like Chinese, so whether it is orthographic or not becomes irrelevant to the reading process; it just needs to be consistent and familiar.
Spelling is an issue when we're learning to read and write and in an ESOL context; for most of us we are past it (or very much past it).

less means smaller (in size or number); fewer = smaller in number.
a) Her troubles were fewer than her husband's.
b) Her troubles were less than her husband's.
Doesn't really come up much though.

If "fewer is more" means something other than "less is more", then we have a semantic distinction, but it's very small.

Is "few" is the result of Viking "package tours" ?

Few is more

Never in the history of humane endeavour have so many owed so much to so less.

There were, apparently, a less people there

I've seen it suggested that the past-simple

Murphy also notes the well-known Americanism: sentences like:
"Did you finish your homework yet?"
Is this too an example of something borrowed from some earlier form of English?