It's my subtle protest against the HN belief that people need to be warned against articles from previous years. That said, it's a bit alarming to realize I wrote the article 9 years ago.
Agree - a date is often absolutely essential to placing what you’re reading in context. I always look for one at the top of any article I read, and assume based on past experience that the lack of one is usually indicative of clickbait (although clearly not in this case).
I did a small A/B test long ago, and found that the date, if more than a couple of years old, can discourage a lot of people from even reading the article.
So maybe it should be placed at the end as a compromise?
I can definitely appreciate the conundrum - you write a great piece and you want people to see it. My 2c would just be: trust your reader. People tend to have a good sense for whether a particular piece of content is going to have an effective “use-by” date or not.
Hi, kens. This is my n-th time rereading this article, this time I noticed a small typo. Footnote 90, "More recent VMR specifications" should've been "VRM".
Lack of dates in articles annoyed me way before i started reading HN. So i don't see the problem (didn't know that was a thing on HN), but i respect your decision.