It isn't perfect; it is even worse (unless CSS is disabled; I often disable CSS due to the excessive and undesirable CSS in web pages (which sometimes makes it very slow, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't look very good)). The original is better.
> Shit’s finally lightweight and loads fast;
The original does it better. (If JavaScripts are enabled, then the <script> command might make it slower but you can omit that. Fortunately, this "perfect" one does omit the <script>, at least.)
> Finally fits on all your shitty screens;
Not very well. With a small window size, the font is too big and it doesn't fit. With a big window size, it wastes space. The original, without CSS, allows it to fit to the window size appropriately.
> Finally looks the same in all your shitty browsers;
It is better not to; it should look correct in all of the browsers but that does not mean that it should look the same. User preferences, considerations having to do with the display (e.g. mono vs colours), available fonts, accessibility, computer types, etc, can and should make it different, and the author of the document should not have to worry about most of this (as long as minimal accessibility tags are included where necessary; see below about the HTML lang attribute).
> Won’t bleach your fucking eyeballs at night if your browser thinks you like dark things;
The use of CSS means that it is necessary to make this consideration. Omitting CSS makes this unnecessary.
> The motherfucker’s still accessible to every asshole that visits your site;
Due to the redirection of "http:" to "https:", it isn't.
> Shit’s still legible and gets your fucking point across.
Let the reader decide what is "legible".
> I know you love marginalization, but you should take care of people. The HTML tag doesn’t include the lang attribute in your shitty webpage.
This is a valid point; there are benefits of specifying the language.
> Don’t let improper marks and quotes make their way onto websites because of dumb defaults in applications and CMSs.
The ASCII quotations marks are good enough for most purposes, and are also more portable. However, if you do not want to use them, OK; at least you added a <meta charset> command in this case (which is relevant for this one, so it is appropriate to be included; but the <meta charset> command is superfluous in the original).
> And did you let the browser choose the font? Don’t make me read such text with Times New Roman.
I hope you do let the browser choose the font, according to the font installed by the user. Don't make me read such text with needing to download additional fonts that I don't want.
> And as you’ll never be perfect, let others improve your shit or do what the fuck they want to.
> Shit’s finally lightweight and loads fast;
The original does it better. (If JavaScripts are enabled, then the <script> command might make it slower but you can omit that. Fortunately, this "perfect" one does omit the <script>, at least.)
> Finally fits on all your shitty screens;
Not very well. With a small window size, the font is too big and it doesn't fit. With a big window size, it wastes space. The original, without CSS, allows it to fit to the window size appropriately.
> Finally looks the same in all your shitty browsers;
It is better not to; it should look correct in all of the browsers but that does not mean that it should look the same. User preferences, considerations having to do with the display (e.g. mono vs colours), available fonts, accessibility, computer types, etc, can and should make it different, and the author of the document should not have to worry about most of this (as long as minimal accessibility tags are included where necessary; see below about the HTML lang attribute).
> Won’t bleach your fucking eyeballs at night if your browser thinks you like dark things;
The use of CSS means that it is necessary to make this consideration. Omitting CSS makes this unnecessary.
> The motherfucker’s still accessible to every asshole that visits your site;
Due to the redirection of "http:" to "https:", it isn't.
> Shit’s still legible and gets your fucking point across.
Let the reader decide what is "legible".
> I know you love marginalization, but you should take care of people. The HTML tag doesn’t include the lang attribute in your shitty webpage.
This is a valid point; there are benefits of specifying the language.
> Don’t let improper marks and quotes make their way onto websites because of dumb defaults in applications and CMSs.
The ASCII quotations marks are good enough for most purposes, and are also more portable. However, if you do not want to use them, OK; at least you added a <meta charset> command in this case (which is relevant for this one, so it is appropriate to be included; but the <meta charset> command is superfluous in the original).
> And did you let the browser choose the font? Don’t make me read such text with Times New Roman.
I hope you do let the browser choose the font, according to the font installed by the user. Don't make me read such text with needing to download additional fonts that I don't want.
> And as you’ll never be perfect, let others improve your shit or do what the fuck they want to.
OK.