While I appreciate your vigilantism (given you aren't actually a moderator nor do you work at FB), the real elephant in the room is that HN really needs to a better solution for vote collusion. I am already familiar with the guidelines, and I usually follow this rule to a tee, but the optics here are damning.

What I'd really like to see is this discussion steered back on topic. It was originally interesting and productive. I like talking about web technologies; it is my passion.

Frankly I only downvoted because of the unfounded accusations of Facebook shilling. There's a certain level of pretentiousness in thinking one's comments could only ever be downvoted because somebody was literally paid to do it. And that attitude rubs me the wrong way.

To bring it back to the discussion itself, I'm also a huge fan of web technologies, so I'm always glad to see further optimizations being made.

I'm hesitant to use it now as it's still so early, but would like to see it mature so it can be included as a step in our gulp/grunt build processes.

Continuing the discussion means not opportunistically taking a cheap shot first. :(

You're right, but I also didn't realize until after I'd commented that I was replying to the same author as the parent poster.

Baseless accusations of collusion and shillage aren't OK on Hacker News. We care a lot about vote quality and we're more than happy to take a look at specific cases if you have concerns, but please email us at [email protected] so that the discussion here can continue.

Sure. I emailed my feedback to you, thanks.