[PascalsMugger]

Why are we adding (2016) to current year submissions now?

[overcast]

So time travelers feel more comfortable. You know how offended everyone gets these days.

[pingswept]

Goddam fateless tickers. Why can't they just stay put?

[slazaro]

At first sight I thought the movie was from 2016, since "Title (Year)" is a very common way of mentioning movies, but this movie is from 1992, so that's not it.

[slantyyz]

Wow, I didn't realize it came out in 1992, I thought it came out a few years later. Now I'm really starting to feel old.

In 1992, I was still using the Hayes command set to connect to the broader world.

+++

ath

[fnordsensei]

I haven't seen the movie, so I went looking for a movie named Sneakers that was released this year.

It turns out that it was just CGI /so advanced/ that it took humanity 24 years to reproduce in real time.

[maxerickson]

Why is ~1 user doing it is the question. I guess there is a good chance they just prefer it.

[rfreytag]

Because when searching in 2017+ knowing the year of the article might be nice. With the Wayback Machine and its ilk around the Internet is not ephemeral.

[ajanuary]

Most posts are contemporary, which means you can use the post date to figure out the year of the article without clogging up the list of titles with (2016)

[dang]

We're not, so we've (belatedly) taken that out.