An important question to take notice of.

This has hints of the stereotypical Borscht Belt humor seen in "you never call, you never write" and Jewish mother disappointment.

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Princeton Geniza Lab on Twitter (@GenizaLab)</span> in "New join for this letter from a disconsolate mother to her son in al-Ushmūnayn (Upper Egypt), 1146–54 CE. Found by @OdedZinger! https://t.co/w86PRW7eew https://t.co/ldRvosxY2a" (<time class='dt-published'>12/16/2022 10:10:53</time>)</cite></small>

Older content may broadly be considered more valuable than newer content. The fact that it has been "tried and true" gives it enormously more value than newer and untested content.

Newer content is primarily valuable solely because it is new. How much of it will live on to become old content without falling off of the long tail of the value distribution?

Link this to the idea of imitation > innovation in Annie Murphy Paul's book The Extended Mind.

Link this to the fact that NASA uses 30+ year old software and systems in their outer-space program because all the glitches and bugs have been found and it's far more reliable.

Finding the older gems has generally been the sort of driving idea behind @peterhagen and his https://lindylearn.io/ site -- particularly his Hacker News tool.

This is absolutely incredible and profound. As an old school wannabee journalist, I applaud these efforts. If only the Charlotte Observer would lower their prices to about $5 a month for digital, I would subscribe, even on my income.