CSS-in-JS is the perfect example of a tech that introduces problems and complexity in almost all cases.
And you can still use SASS. With those benefits, I don’t see any reason to use CSS-in-JS over CSS Modules in any project.
I'd also like to point out that in my experience actual "engineers" tend to pick the most boring possible technology to do something. Because it probably works. (The really interesting jobs are where even the most boring possible technology to accomplish it doesn't exist yet.)
That's because decent engineers understand that their job is not tech but business - tech is only a means to an end, and that end is to help business thrive.
I've been in the opposite situation of a bad dev pushing every big-data tech he took a fancy to, and the management not being clue-ful enough to understand where it was leading them. Big data frameworks are expensive in every way, and become heavy negative cost if the data is not big.
"Sass is the most mature, stable, and powerful professional grade CSS extension language in the world." 
Look, I think CSS-in-JS is a great idea.
It's cool, in fact I remember suggesting something similar to my lead dev as a newbie 12 years ago. He basically told me I was an idiot.
My point is you guys are getting fired up over things that are just variations on a theme. First it was mix presentation and logic. Then it was separate it all, html, css, js. Then it was put some restricted js functionality in html. Then it was f* it lets just do it js.
More specifically: Think subjectively, think what's relevant to your current context...
Most important, is to lose the "everything is a nail attitude" and instead find the solution that fits best for your current problem. It's very difficult to make unbiased well balanced decisions to use a solution when starting from the solutions perspective. It's better to start with the problem first and stop focusing too much on tools, methods, patterns etc. i.e be invested in your problem not some solution, you don't owe them anything.
None of these ideas e.g CSS-in-JS are absolutely good or bad, they can be good in one context and bad in another, however very often the distribution is such that they are bad to generally apply - programming patterns being the worst and most often abused case of things that should not be generally applied and which are.
It's ok to talk about new ideas, it's not ok to forcefully apply the latest idea to everything you touch like it's your new religion.
My first thought was: how long before we see CSS-in-TS
No shiny objects is the rule. But break it if it's an obvious (necessary?) improvement and you know how to inject new technologies safely.
When you only have one principle to worry about, life is simple. More than one, you're always trading something off.
I mean, if you want to capture the market of American tourists in France you wouldn't want to spend too much time on whether to use Oracle or MongoDB. Yes, the technical debate is interesting and these new kids do interesting things but you have been through many debates and know the arguments and none of that has to to with your higher level goals.
The author is probably using a bridge that converts tweets to Webmentions, but if you submit a Webmention from your own blog it will appear there as well, without needing Twitter in the middle. That's the beauty of it :)
This is an intended usecase of the indieweb, see https://indieweb.org/backfeed
Implementing webmentions on your website is not hard. But if you don't want to selfhost your own webmention endpoint (or can't), take a look at webmention.io (that plays well with bridgy) to host your webmentions and expose a JSON API. This API allows you for example, when a building a page, to query the API for webmentions related to this piece of content so you can display those interactions nicely as on the original article linked.
This analysis is bogus, it assumes innovation is defined by bleeding edge technology and tooling... specific technology or tooling does not define or even positively correlate with innovation of the project itself.
In fact I would go as far as saying it potentially has a negative correlation - bleeding edge tooling or technology can be especially distracting unless the difference is fundamentally relevant - when I pick the simplest most boring tool it's often because they are well understood, mature and minimize the time I spent focusing on them, unlike bleeding edge things that pull me away from the core problem or thing I am trying to "innovate". These are not mutually exclusive either, you might have some people working on putting together build pipelines who are very "noisy" about up and coming technologies that can simplify or improve their systems somehow... and completely separately some other people who write the code that goes through that pipeline and may or may not care about it's exact makeup, they also may or may not be "noisy" about the patterns or strategies they came up with to innovate in their problem areas.
While it is true there is a visible and invisible part of the world of development (not everyone blogs), the analogy completely breaks down when you try to infer things from that observed absence of information because people are not amorphous matter. People are the complete entropic opposite, they are highly animate high entropy matter exhibitting some of the most complex behavior known - Attempting to infer a single quality of one of their most complex and intentional behaviors from a lack of information is not going to work... even for dark matter we only dare to infer extremely generic things such as quantity.
EDIT: original comment sounded like I was implying plagiarism, which was not my intent.
Dark matter is so cringy and one of the most embarrassing moves from physics. Instead of admitting there is a massive flaw in the models, they decided to name it.
Do we have any explanation that makes sense without supposing the existing of dark matter?
Why not just go with "God" /s? Being unable to explain things doesn't mean we should pretend to invent some. It literally is, in this case, the name for that which we cannot explain, without being forthright about it.
> The model works for most uses.
Newtonian physics also worked for 100% of cases for centuries.
The "massive flaw" is that a massive "85%" of the universe is composed of this thing that our models can't explain and our solution was to name it.
The graph isn't fully connected. It isn't close. It shouldn't be a surprise that some particles are only connected to each other via gravity -- several are only connected via two.
What I find interesting is the possibility that dark matter is made up of multiple particles, which interact with each other, but not ours. There might be multiple such groupings. That would neatly explain why most of the universe is dark matter, and we ourselves would be dark matter to someone else.
Newtonian physics is still taught and used by almost everyone who needs physics. All engineers use Newtonian physics for structural calculations. It's a perfectly adequate approximation for everyday reality.
"It's there but we can't see, detect, or feel it. But we need it to exist because it explains some phenomina we can't figure out without it."
For posters who instinctively dismiss Medium articles, there are plenty of harder links therein.
The TL;DR is that scientists are not actually idiots who simply can neither comprehend, nor accept, flaws in their models, and chances are they've considered whatever obvious thing popped into your head as soon as you read the words "dark matter." The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.