That wouldn't be considered a timestamp in my book. For starters, it doesn't have time information, only date information. Quickly asking ChatGPT it gives this answer:
In computing, timestamps are commonly expressed in formats like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss" (year-month-day hour:minute:second).
When pressed about this particular time detail, ChatGPT elaborates:
While "YYYY-MM-DD" is a common date format, it's not complete for a timestamp, which typically includes both date and time information. A complete timestamp might look like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss" to include hours, minutes, and seconds.
So, no, this post doesn't contain a timestamp, and it already fails in its own advice.
The blog post contains a timestamp in the RSS feed. In fact, the referenced post by Julia Evans also contains a timestamp in its RSS feed as well.
However, the post is making the point that the date should be in the post as viewed by the human reader as clearly as possible, which isn't the case in the the referenced post by Julia Evans.
In the third paragraph the author notes that "Only when I copied the URL to complain about it I discovered the date there". So there is no confusion on the author's part about what a timestamp is versus what a date is.
Quite the nitpick. They obviously mean date not timestamp.
The fidelity increase of Date->Timestamp for a blog post is almost nothing (unless you are reporting on current events, e.g. the BBC has timestamps in their live reports).
The fidelity increase of {} -> Date is much higher. For tech you now know that this article is likely incorrect. E.g. if it is 10 years old and about how to install Node or something.
