>It depends, but frequently, yes. e.g. If I were about to read a tech blog, and see it's from someone that can't make a couple paragraphs work without scripting, then that raises the chance that whatever they had to say was not going to be valuable since they evidently don't know the basics.
Seems only narrowly applicable. I can see how you can use this logic to discount articles like "how to make a good blog" or whatever, but that's presumably only a tiny minority of article you'd read. If the topic is literally anything else it doesn't really hold. It doesn't seem fair to discount whatever an AI engineer or DBA has to say because they don't share the same fanaticism of lightweight sites as you. On the flip side I see plenty of AI generated slop that works fine with javascript disabled, because they're using some sort of SaaS (think medium) or static site generator.
Generally speaking, getting good performance out of a database mostly comes down to understanding how the thing works and then not making it do a stupid amount of unnecessary work. I expect someone who understands that would also not e.g. fetch a script that then fetches the actual text instead of just sending the text. For example Markus Winand's sites work just fine with javascript off.
For ML stuff I'd let e.g. mathjax fly, but I expect the surrounding prose to show up first to get me interested enough to enable scripts.
It's not an exact filter, but it gives some signal to feed into the "is this worth my time" model.
It's also odd to characterize it as fanaticism: scriptless sites are the default. If you just type words, it will work. You have to go out of your way to make a Rube Goldberg machine. I'm not interested in Rube Goldberg machines or the insights of the people that enjoy making them. Like if you own a restaurant and make your menu so that it's only available on a phone, I'll just leave. I don't appreciate the gimmick. Likewise for things that want me to install an app or use a cloud. Not happening.
Rather then fanaticism I'm going to second that I find it to be a useful signal. The people that I find worthwhile to read generally have an interest in tinkering and exhibit curiosity about what's under the hood. Same reason HN lends itself to better discussions than other venues.
Very approximately: there's a group that took the time to understand and attempt to build something robust, a group that has no interest in web except as a means to an end so threw it at a well reviewed static site generator, and a group that spent time futzing around with a rube goldberg machine yet didn't bother to seek deeper understanding.
Seems only narrowly applicable. I can see how you can use this logic to discount articles like "how to make a good blog" or whatever, but that's presumably only a tiny minority of article you'd read. If the topic is literally anything else it doesn't really hold. It doesn't seem fair to discount whatever an AI engineer or DBA has to say because they don't share the same fanaticism of lightweight sites as you. On the flip side I see plenty of AI generated slop that works fine with javascript disabled, because they're using some sort of SaaS (think medium) or static site generator.