Big +1 to this. Much of the programming stuff I've read that's made a big difference to me and my skills and career has been the older "classic" and fundamental stuff. Unless it's directly related to the specific tools you're working with on your current project, and even specific issues with those tools, maybe let it age before you spend time on it.

"1+ year" actually sounds pretty short to me. Maybe 5 or 10 years to see if something has real insight and staying power and you want to spend your time on reading it. For stuff that's like, books or serious papers & essays, and not small news or release-notes or security-update posts. Many of the things I've read the last ~10 years that had lasting value were from the '90s or even '70s. (Though there's often updated editions of them, and AFAICT the new editions are pretty much always better.)

There's a "Somebody's Law" for this that basically goes "for a thing that's currently in use, the older it is, the longer it will probably stay relevant, and vice versa". Can't remember its name or exact wording, but it's basically reflecting that old things still in use have proven their value and flexibility, and are less likely to be just trends, and also have inertia and network effects.