> I find that having an up to date year on a copyright line [...] is a "remove the brown m&ms" signal [...] If a person or team didn't catch this, what other de

> I find that having an up to date year on a copyright line [...] is a "remove the brown m&ms" signal [...] If a person or team didn't catch this, what other details did they miss? The difference being the brown M&M's test is an excellent one whereas when it comes to "having an up to date year on a copyright line", it's not about someone "missing" these "details", since there are good (i.e. deliberate) reasons not to update the year (and only bad reasons to actually do it). So something rather like the reverse of what you meant is actually true: if you notice people adhere to some bizarre and misguided practice like trying to make sure the copyright year is "up to date", then what other totally unnecessary (and maybe even potentially harmful) bullshit might they be cargo culting into their work practices—and should you worry about trusting their judgement in other areas that actually matter?