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 has always been welcome here—more here than nearly anywhere else on the internet. One of the best functions of HN is that it helps spread knowledge of history.

Knowing the year helps orient people to what they're reading. It's interesting to know when something was written, and often important for understanding it correctly. Also it provides a nice demarcation between news of the moment and older articles, which are often uncorrelated and go deeper than the mass of current stories. That's a good thing.

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.

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.

I didn't see that suggested at all.