1) people stop inexplicably calling it "dead"
Being "dead" has its fringe benefits, at least, like no one proposing changes for the sake of change - it gets to be happily frozen and useful with no one trying to e.g. update it from the XML-everything mania of its time (embarassing in hindsight) to the JSON-everything mania of our time (I'm worried there won't even be a hindsight for it to be embarassing in).
Well, except when people propose to replace it with something else because it's "dead" (sorry, I have no interest in following anyone on activitypub - if I want updates from your blog, I will poll the RSS feed you have kindly provided).
As someone who has written a parser library and a RSS reader program, I can tell you that it is an endless battle of users always reporting yet another feed that is "breaking your RSS reader".
When investigating why the feed does not work well, you always end up finding yet another way how a site can implement RSS/Atom badly while still following the letter of the specification.
I love the idea of RSS/Atom and the possibilities they allow, but hate the actual specs.
So given that, any chance you could elucidate on fault you find with Atom?
Still, I vaguely recall that there was at least one vagueness in the Atom 1.0 spec that I found abused in a real world feed, but can't for the life of me remember it - it's been a while.
Now I can't remember the last time I saw a site promoting or even clearly mentioning above the fold that they publish an rss feed. I didn't know HN published one until now.
That's why I haven't argued with anyone claiming it's dead. It seems like it disappeared.
[0] https://feedly.com/i/subscription/feed%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fmicha...
Then you just expand on the options and uses to someone who's already favorable toward RSS because it was so painless to use they didn't even realize they used it to follow some of their favorite people.