I use it everyday. In fact, that's how I saw this HN post.
IMO, when it comes to RSS, people are always asking the wrong question. RSS is a technology, not a product. It makes as much sense as asking whether someone is using GSM or TCP. I think a large part of that problem is that the technology appeared before a user-friendly way to consume it. Imagine email addresses being introduced before email clients existed. To most people, clicking on an RSS button displays garbage to the screen. They don't know what to do with it. Even after browsers started displaying RSS feeds in a pretty format, users still didn't know what to do with it. Should they bookmark this link? Why would they consume the barebones RSS feed in their browser instead of the rich and graphical website? RSS enables one to subscribe to a website, it's not the ends but the means. These questions still remain unanswered which is why some people like Gruber and TechCrunch like to claim that Twitter killed RSS, although I think they're completely different things.
IMO, when it comes to RSS, people are always asking the wrong question. RSS is a technology, not a product. It makes as much sense as asking whether someone is using GSM or TCP. I think a large part of that problem is that the technology appeared before a user-friendly way to consume it. Imagine email addresses being introduced before email clients existed. To most people, clicking on an RSS button displays garbage to the screen. They don't know what to do with it. Even after browsers started displaying RSS feeds in a pretty format, users still didn't know what to do with it. Should they bookmark this link? Why would they consume the barebones RSS feed in their browser instead of the rich and graphical website? RSS enables one to subscribe to a website, it's not the ends but the means. These questions still remain unanswered which is why some people like Gruber and TechCrunch like to claim that Twitter killed RSS, although I think they're completely different things.