• I would give it a similar but distinct name, and just be aboveboard in the docs about where people can find the original project, what the differences are, and about what’s going on. As long as you’re open about what’s up I think it would be hard for any reasonable person to take offense if you prefer a less unixy style of output or whatever.
• I would create an issue on the original project just explaining what you like and what you implemented in the new one, and saying you’re happy to contribute although the changes may not be wanted et cetera. Just be honest. You’re fine. More communication is usually a good thing.
• git is powerful. It’s worth learning about the concepts if you do decide to invest the effort. You don’t have to get into a crazy workflow, but having your own ongoing branch and being able to merge/rebase changes from upstream as they happen can make your life easier. However, like a lot of tools from that type of toolbox, it can also make your life a lot harder if you’re not certain of what you’re doing, so YMMV. I would try to read a specific guide about how to set up the workflow you want, not just the reference documentation. Git has a ton of features, 90+% of which you don’t need, and many of its core features are called strange things or work in an unintuitive way.

deleted by creator

It’s true. Part of the point the video was making is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with cheap thrills. But (he says), it’s a little weird for the cheap thrills to be the subject of the network’s greatest investment of money into anything to date, and dressed up in all the trappings of a super-blockbuster tentpole offering, and based (supposedly) on powerful source material which is anything but cheap thrills and in fact makes a poignant and compelling point in the exact opposite direction, saying that cheap thrills against the backdrop of a dying world can be a poisonous distraction.