This pop culture attitude is the worst trait of this site.

Just because it's old does not make it less valuable as you suggest.

Asking for inclusion of the year does not suggest the content is less valuable, and often provides important context about the content and how to interpret it.

e.g. an article about the risks of AI written in 2007 will hit differently than a similar piece written yesterday.

I didn't see that suggested at all.

The date is usually put in the title because it's informative.

> Just because it's old does not make it less valuable as you suggest.

Wait, who suggested that? Nobody even implied anything remotely like that.

It's valuable context.

Here it doesn't hurt or help the piece.

More often than anything, the year adds weight to a piece. The essay "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy" would be interesting observations at any time, but putting (2005) after it makes it clear the leading work that it was and how universal the observations may be.

Other users have already addressed this but I want to add a bit too.

HN's convention of putting years on titles is definitely not intended to devalue an article—on the contrary, historical material is always welcome here! One of the best functions of HN is that it helps spread knowledge of history.