Now I will say something negative. It's a nit, but I think it needs to be said.
I've seen a lot of these "In which I write a (perhaps series of) essays on building X using all kinds of cool tech you'd probably like to play with when you could get the same result with less than ten bucks, maybe an hour or two, and just a handful of code, if any"
I'm okay with and completely love "Let's do something cool and learn!" I'm not okay with "I have this problem, so let me by implication teach you how you should architect problems when you run across them" We need to clearly differentiate. You should not, and you should never, start with an important project and begin speculating on what cool tech you could play with.
Playing and learning are great. Yay! Adding structure and complexity where none is needed is an antipattern if you're doing anything of value for yourself or somebody else. This stack might end up being necessary. Absolutely. Make the problem "prove" that it's necessary. You should have a clear and unambiguous process for choosing a stack; do it by necessity. Never even accidentally teach that you do it by "hey, that's cool!" People end up doing that, and somebody ends up having to clean it up.
tl;dr Love fun projects like this. Keep 'em coming. Just please be sure you're clear to the reader that they're learning/fun projects.
* Perfectly fine to add a tech or two to a new project in order to learn-as-you-work, it should just be done with the upmost care and a close eye to how much team bandwidth it's using versus the value being provided and how you'd back it out if you had to.