alt Hacker News> Because the problem is, JavaScript can fail to load in several ways. Here's a non-exhaustive list of cases...
The author answered their own question. In even the best effort case, noscript is the fallback.
I'm not even sure what they expect the website maintainer to do for most of that list. If they knew themselves, they would have put it in the blog post. Is this instead a call to draft new w3c specs or revisions? What am I misunderstanding? For a site that has "hacktivism" in the domain name, whining like this is a bad look.
I think you're missing the part where they quote the recommendation from the HTML spec:
> For this reason, it's generally better to avoid using noscript, and to instead design the script to change the page from being a scriptless page to a scripted page on the fly
That seems perfectly reasonable for modern sites and browsers to be able to do. `noscript` is effectively a relic from older days where you just didn't have the same budgets, tools, and browsers as today, where you couldn't seamlessly enhance the site how you can now. We shouldn't continue to use it in the same way we shouldn't continue to use `marquee` or `blink`.