Incorrect Date on RSS feeds

[harry-evans]

I am running Vienna version Version 3.0.9 :22b3ce2: I noticed that new "What If" Articles from Randall Munroe (who does xkcd) are showing up with 2015 vs 2016 dates. Checked the xml source, and the dates seem to be correctly showing 2016 dates. Some feeds seem to be working fine, but this one definitely is not. Thoughts?

feed url: http://what-if.xkcd.com/feed.atom Vienna shows 2015 date in both list and detail view: list view:

detail view:

snippet from feed (via Vienna's "Show XML Source"):

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<title type="text">What If?</title>
<id>http://what-if.xkcd.com/feed.atom</id>
<updated>2016-01-21T15:12:19Z</updated>
<link href="http://what-if.xkcd.com/feed.atom" rel="self"/>
<author>
<name>xkcd</name>
<email>whatif@xkcd.com</email>
</author>
<icon>http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/favicon.ico</icon>
<logo>http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/favicon.ico</logo>
<subtitle type="text">
Answering your hypothetical questions with physics, every Tuesday.
</subtitle>
<entry>
<id>http://what-if.xkcd.com/142/</id>
<title type="text">Space Jetta</title>
<updated>2016-01-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
<author>
<name>xkcd</name>
<email>whatif@xkcd.com</email>
</author>
<content type="html">
<article class="entry"> <a href="//what-if.xkcd.com/142/"><h1>Space Jetta</h1></a> <p id="question">What if I tried to re-enter the atmosphere in my car? (a 2000 VW Jetta TDI). Would it do more environmental damage than it is already apparently doing?</p> <p id="attribute">—Casey Berg</p> <p>Believe it or not, throwing cars at a planet might be better for the planet than driving them on the surface. But it&#39;s hard to say for sure.</p> <img class="illustration" title="Ugh, I hate merging." src="/imgs/a/142/jetta.png"> <p>Volkswagen, as you&#39;ve apparently heard, has been cheating on pollution tests since 2009. Your car was made before they started cheating, but that doesn&#39;t actually mean it pollutes less. Since the 1970s, the US has been <a href="http://www.nescaum.org/documents/a-brief-history-of-technology-forcing-motor-vehicle-regulations/miller-auto-reg-history-em-200906.pdf">tightening the rules</a> around some of the exhaust gasses that create smog, like nitric oxide. By the mid-2000s, when the latest round of standards kicked in, Volkswagen apparently decided it was too expensive to keep up without sacrificing performance. Instead, they modified their cars to cheat on the tests, then lied to customers about how clean their cars were.</p> <p>If you somehow put your car in orbit, then let it re-enter the atmosphere and burn up like a satellite, that would put an end to the tailpipe pollution.</p> <img class="illustration" title="Wait, I need to get my car inspected? Oh, that explains why those flashy-light-cars are always chasing me." src="/imgs/a/142/tailpipe.png"> <p>On the other hand, burned fragments of your car (and body) would be scattered throughout the stratosphere. So what impact does space debris have on our air?</p> <p>The surprising answer is that <a href="http://www.space.com/6720-space-littering-impact-earths-atmosphere.html">no one really knows</a>. Roughly one major piece of space debris, like a satellite or booster rocket, re-enters the atmosphere each day. We talk about them &quot;burning up,&quot; but they don&#39;t really disappear. Big chunks of them <a href="http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/reentry/recovered.html">make it to the ground</a> (usually falling in the ocean or landing in the desert somewhere.) Other dust and fragments are scattered throughout the stratosphere, and no one really knows what effect they have on anything.</p> <img class="illustration" title="Seriously, we inhale WAY more weird stuff all the time, like when we leave a Teflon pot on the stove by accident. Actually, maybe we should look into that one..." src="/imgs/a/142/problem.png"> <p>Your car&#39;s shockwave would also create nitric oxide, which would—briefly—<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/enviro/debrisOz.pdf">eat a small hole</a> in the ozone layer. That hole would &quot;close up&quot; quickly, and the overall impact on the ozone layer would be small compared to other sources of ozone depletion.</p> <p>While your car would briefly harm the ozone layer, it would help with global warming. I don&#39;t know how long you expect to have your car, but if you drive it another hundred thousand miles, it will emit about 20 or 30 tons of carbon dioxide. By destroying your car, it&#39;s true that you&#39;ll be literally putting carbon into the atmosphere, but not nearly as much as you would by continuing to drive it.</p> <img class="illustration" title="They warn we must stop emitting ozone before it&#39;s too late." src="/imgs/a/142/atmosphere.png"> <p>In the end, the real problem isn&#39;t the re-entry—it&#39;s the launch. Rocket launches have a much larger <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2009/11/dirty_rockets.html">impact to the environment</a> than re-entry, although it&#39;s still small in the grand scheme of things since we don&#39;t launch very many rockets.</p> <p>Which raises a final question: What are you and your car doing in orbit in the first place? Are you the only one? Or have all cars been teleported into orbit? If so, we could be in trouble.</p> <img class="illustration" title="He says they&#39;re rolling out a fix which will let us all reenter the atmosphere and land safely on his barge, but no one wants to be the first to try it." src="/imgs/a/142/tesla.png"> <p>It&#39;s <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/585584main_UARS_Status.pdf">unlikely</a> that any one piece of satellite debris will hit someone. But there are several hundred million passenger cars in the United States alone. If all of them were suddenly shot into orbit and allowed to reenter, it&#39;s likely that somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand people would be injured or killed by falling engine blocks, transmissions, and half-melted axles.</p> <p>On the other hand, about <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm">thirty thousand Americans</a> are killed each year in motor vehicle accidents. So while launching all our cars into space—and letting them fall back down and hit us—might sound like a bad idea ...</p> <img class="illustration" title="Sorry, PROFESSOR, I didn&#39;t realize you had such strong specific opinions on angles." src="/imgs/a/142/launch.png"> <p>... it&#39;s arguably a lot safer than continuing to drive them.</p> </article>
</content>
<link href="http://what-if.xkcd.com/142/" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
<published>2016-01-20T00:00:00Z</published>
</entry>

[barijaona]

I could not reproduce that…

My timezone is UTC+3

[josh64x2]

@harry-evans are you still having this issue? I can't reproduce either.

Thanks

[harry-evans]

Still there. Currently on Version 3.1.0 :a5cab92:

Only see it with that one feed. Can't tell where the incorrect date comes from. Items from the feed starting on 1/25/2016 are sorted into the proper place, but items from the beginning of year still show as 2015 instead of 2016. I am assuming that maybe the feed had the wrong date when Vienna first downloaded them, but when I view source I am getting the latest version or something.

No idea, but doesn't seem to be a common occurrence.