[qwery]

the recent google report claimed that less than 0.1% of users have javascript disabled ... like for every website, or just some, or?

your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult

> I'm marginally sympathetic

you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.

[kstrauser]

It would be literally impossible to know whether a user disabled JavaScript on another site, so I'm going to say that they meant that for their own sites.

> you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else.

I was literally responding to someone referring to themselves as "collateral damage" and saying I'm playing into "Big Adtech's playbook". I explained why they're wrong.

> the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.

Unless someone is making a site that explicitly targets users unwilling or unable to execute JavaScript, like an alternative browser that disables it by default or such, mathematically, yes, that's the correct course of action.