Then it was media queries and a fluid grid.
Then it was media queries and a fluid grid and mobile first.
Now it's media queries and a fluid grid and mobile first and built around the content.
Tomorrow what ?
Meanwhile, responsive websites are as crappy as non responsive one, but 2x heavier because of the crazy CSS and all the async js.
If you can't detect the internet speed of your user, you can't make responsive websites, period. That's why the only good responsive websites are the text-content-only websites.
Come on, the linked post is nearly 2mb...
I'm not sure about your other points, I see no reason why a responsive site should be 2x heaver in file size than its non-responsive equivalent, after all it's only a few more bytes of CSS. The increase you're seeing is probably more to do with large JS libraries and in the case of the linked article, many large images.
It's good. Perhaps the inclination to tag "really good" is because of the trendy pictures?
But really, Simon's article/presentation/rant is presented as responsive design within a framework that is mobile-first. And the body of his works shows a distinctly mobile-first perspective. Which is not bad, but is also not necessarily responsive.
Really good responsive design gives an optimized desktop experience, and gracefully degrades to smaller screens. --OR-- Really good responsive design gives an optimized mobile experience, and gracefully expands for larger screens.