Perhaps a hint could be added on HN's submission page about adding the year of publication in parentheses for older articles? That seems to be the custom.
I was about to ask why an article from 16 years ago is being posted to the front page when there surely has been a newer and more academic analysis of the material available at some point within that decade and a half. When I say academic, I mean it in the sense of a "just the facts, ma'am" approach instead of one with a commentary attached, regardless of the alignment of the commentary.
Comments
(The Atlantic May 2000 Issue)
Meta:
Perhaps a hint could be added on HN's submission page about adding the year of publication in parentheses for older articles? That seems to be the custom.
It should; my fault. There's no way how to update it unless it gets moderator's attention.
I think this should be made explicit for articles that are not recent.
Agree - I read this and I thought, I have read this before.
I was about to ask why an article from 16 years ago is being posted to the front page when there surely has been a newer and more academic analysis of the material available at some point within that decade and a half. When I say academic, I mean it in the sense of a "just the facts, ma'am" approach instead of one with a commentary attached, regardless of the alignment of the commentary.
I think that's because it's currently trending (in the "Most Popular" section) on The Atlantic website. I'm not sure why.
Yes the reference to "the shooting at Columbine High last spring" confused me, then I noticed the date.
I came here to see whether there was an explanation of why it was being reposted. Maybe there are some predictions in it that have come true?
I think it's interesting context to the continued rise of feminism today.
Flagged and dead, though. Doesn't fit the narrative.