That's a functionality I didn't know exists. So ok, I randomly selected two dates, 2016-07-23 and 2015-01-23. 2016-07-23 Articles i would check out (2): > Sh

That's a functionality I didn't know exists. So ok, I randomly selected two dates, 2016-07-23 and 2015-01-23. 2016-07-23 Articles i would check out (2): > Show HN: Chalkbot > Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics 2015-01-23 Articles i would check out (8): > Google discloses three severe vulnerabilities in Apple OS X > Scientists have shown that young blood rejuvenates old tissues > Day in the Life of a Google Manager > Telomere extension turns back aging clock in cultured human cells, study finds > $1.6B in funding and $7B in exits: Chicago tech just had its best year ever > Hipster Logo Generator > Why I Am Not a Maker > Lars Andersen: a new level of archery [video] Now this may be biased because I somehow knew which page was the old one, so I could choose more articles just to prove my point. So someone should do a blind test to verify it. Also it may have been a "good day", so more samples should be tested to verify it's not an exception. But the fact is, I remember even now reading half of these articles I listed from old page. Especially telomere one. If this article would be posted today, it would attract comments and would be penalized, and who knows, maybe even flagged by some nutjob who thinks that "society obsession over youth" is bad and at the same time upvotes post about scientific study how being fat is actually not causing diabetes. Another fact is that once community gets large enough, content gets objectively worse. Not because of nostalgia or some other psychological effect, but measurably worse.