3 ms·
The motivation for the article was to investigate Steve Jobs' claim, so it would be strange to remove that.
by kens 5y ago
The motivation for the article was to investigate Steve Jobs' claim, so it would be strange to remove that.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoI do wish your blog articles had the published date at the top.
- kens 5y agoIt'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.
- segfaultbuserr 5y agoHi, 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".
- kens 5y agoThanks! I've fixed it now.
- otterley 5y agoThat’s a curious stance, considering that “News” is in the very title of this site, and presumably a description of its content and intent.
- DoreenMichele 5y agoI think it's just context to help people better understand what they are reading.
- darkteflon 5y agoAgree - 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).
- Raed667 5y agoI 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?
- darkteflon 5y agoI 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.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoLack 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.
- nayuki 5y agoNice article, Ken. I noticed that all the Google patent links are broken. For example, https://www.google.com/patents?id=RfA9AAAAEBAJ https://www.google.com/patents?id=RfA9AAAAEBAJ should be https://patents.google.com/patent/US4677366 https://patents.google.com/patent/US4677366 .