> The author even addresses the fact that they didn't set the background on the site.
So? JS template engines allow server-side rendering, to address the fact their pages are slow, and unusable without JS. JS libraries have polyfills, to address browsers implementing older JS versions. Drupal allows Varnish, to address how slow its rendering is. SVG graphics libraries have canvas fallbacks to address IE. Video players have MP4 and Webm versions to address fragmented codec support. And so on.
Does these things make the MFW argument wrong or moot? No, because a) they involve extra work to solve problems that wouldn't exist if people just made a motherfucking website, and b) because many devs don't even bother to implement these fixes even when they exist: case in point, BMFW's authors wrote about setting the background but didn't bother actually doing it, so their site is broken.
> Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed
I get that it's "haha only serious", but it's self-defeating. If the premise were "I built a Web-scale Uber-for-toilets with isomorphic React" and the text were unreadable, that would add to the charm. If the premise were "Stop breaking your sites with junk" (which is the message of MFW) and the text were unreadable, that would be unfortunate and a bit ironic. Yet BMFW's premise is "MFW is right, but there's no excuse to leave out these things", and those things break sites. The site itself is a demonstration of why the only point it makes is wrong. It's funny, but in a "laughing at" rather than a "laughing with" kind of way.
"I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines."
Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed