It's cute that this library is 1776 bytes, but that's quickly going to change as bugs are found and new features need to get added. It seems like coupling a product's name to something that will likely change very shortly is just bad product naming.
meh, call it done. it's modifiable by the user, so leave it alone and let the user mess with it. i have no idea what the author's intentions are/were for the project, but it seems like 'mission accomplished'.
FWIW I'm not saying I dislike the project, I love when people post quirky projects like this to HN for fun. I'm just saying that even the smallest change to this project would cause the author to lose the "1776 USA" marketing strategy. One could say it's an unstable strategy at a local maximum.
What name are you concerned about? The file is called 'usa.css'. The file size is specifically listed right next to the download link. Not unusual. If the file size does change, it'll just be another number, yet the name of the file/project is still 'usa.css'.
I'm talking about the cute fact that the library is 1776 bytes. It was obvious that author deliberately tweaked the file size to be 1776 bytes, to aid in the marketing of the library, and that expecting to keep the file size at 1776 bytes is an unrealistic goal if the author wishes to iterate on the code. I don't get why this is being made into a huge issue. It's a simple observation.
