I am hosting a quite popular site built with perl and php over 20+ years and with at least 2 round-trips to the DB per request. 150ms latency triggers a warning in monitoring, 200 is considered "critical". The site sits on the west coast, the monitor in Chicago. The site serves at least 10 concurrent clients at any time (read: 5am) up to a few thousand.
And I am painfully aware that the bottleneck is the code, not the network.
But also, let's be real for a moment: define "latency". Is 150ms your (client-measured) connection time? Your render time? Your usable-page time? Again, most webapps are lucky to get HTML back to the user in under 300ms, and if your 150ms metric is "time to server-side render", then you very likely aren't.
I stand by my original comment (it's better to avoid loads than to assume you're fast), but good on you for getting those latencies down.
Which is why the comment is advocating for locally-cached resources.
"The way you improve responsiveness is by eliminating round-trips..."
Hence "preload" above.
Pinging google.com from my current connection (NYC) results in an average 26ms latency. Facebook is 25ms. That's just baseline connection latency for a user in a place with a solid connection, and you're unlikely to do better.
Realistically, most apps that aren't Google scale are lucky to get 300ms average latency. The way you improve responsiveness is by eliminating round-trips, not assuming that client-side frameworks will save you.