@ed709062 To me it just looks like he wanted to snitch tag. 

 @ed709062 5X improvement near the top of the stack doesn’t feel like something to sneeze at outright, and your line is fair given the gauntlet thrown, and I don’t envy any of the engineers who had to actually cash the checks. 

 @ed709062 I agree with you that the irony is odious and unbecoming. And I hope my friend hears you. 

And, on the Qualcomm issue, they did eventually back up their trash and rewrote their javascript to please that processor. https://eviltrout.com/2016/02/25/fixing-android-performance.html

The server side performance was a tragedy we all saw coming the day we heard what the stack was. At SO we turned a well performing language into greased lightning. Couldn’t be done on ruby. 

 @ed709062 I also wouldn't add the caching if bing were hitting me incorrectly at a rate 100,000X higher than stated.

And the core answer is I don't get hung up on obvious hyperbole. Jeff's run his mouth about things on the internet for decades. He pokes the bears he wants. Sometimes (somehow) it makes things better for people on the internet. Many other times it misses (and it has missed me). 

 @ed709062 Adding caching should have a very high threshold. Almost none of the caches at Stack Overflow ended up being worth it (I did the analysis and we yanked them out). Adding caching is behind like all the other answers if the problem is one badly behaving bot.