Sure it doesn't need JS, but it can certainly help make the site better. (The JS is for the inverted view button, and some text that shifts through colors. I wish more sites had a dark mode.)

No, I don't think that was the point. The point of the original was that all the extra stuff the "best" version added to improve the orignial is unnecessary in the first place. For example, from the original:

"You thought you needed media queries to be responsive, but no. Responsive means that it responds to whatever motherfucking screensize it's viewed on. This site doesn't care if you're on an iMac or a motherfucking Tamagotchi."

From the "best"

"Every asshole that visits this website can use it without any problem well, kind of" "It's accessible, so everyone can enjoy it but not everyone can read this - this text is Ant-Accessible" "It doesn't use a single media query well, not really"

All of the above seems to be explicitly against the aesthetic of the original. The original was 6Kb, while the "Best" is 600% larger, and really doesn't have much more content wise. Certainly not 600% more. And what do you get with all that bloat? Nothing that makes the site more accessible or easier to read than the first. Everything about this "best" is worse than the first and second.

This has got to be parody or else it makes no sense.

> The JS is for the inverted view button, and some text that shifts through colors. I wish more sites had a dark mode.)

If more sites focused on just content the way motherfucking website advocates, it would be easy to style it however you please. It shouldn't be the website's job to adjust itself to your preferred reading conditions. It should give you the content, and then you can decide on fonts and colors. Opera does this right, with a mode that will strip out the stylesheet and replace it with your own, so you can invert any website you like. The problem is, it doesn't work well on sites that get too fancy with JS and CSS.