I like how HN's adherence to a certain simplicity has, I think, helped keep the community integrated, and relatively egalitarian and respectful (with a lot of o

I like how HN's adherence to a certain simplicity has, I think, helped keep the community integrated, and relatively egalitarian and respectful (with a lot of other work going into that, as well, I'm sure). But there have been a few times, this year and recently, where very pertinent security issues have had threads of both immediate and enduring value, with information -- mostly in the comments -- both useful and not available elsewhere that I've seen, online. Maybe another one of HN's select, few categories. E.g. "essential". Probably populated solely at the moderators' discretion. In that, I'm in favor of the benevolent dictators model: Maybe some polite and well-argued comments about what might belong, but no voting or manipulable -- technically nor socially -- as to what gets in there. When a processor, platform, OS is significantly borked, and the knowledge is essential to a broad portion of this community. That would be what goes in there. Starts as regular threads. If the need to know and value of them are high enough, they get tagged with that category. So that, e.g. I can more readily find that Intel Management Engine thread a couple of months later, when I'm deciding whether I want to patch (or patch further) and what mitigations to keep in place. I don't know, and maybe I'm wrong. Just an idea. P.S. I don't know whether the front page would link "essential" somewhere, or whether it would be like some other qualifiers, that don't have a front page presence. Again, the simplicity of the front page, versus the value of the information and the need to know. P.P.S. I really am afraid, though, of the arguments its presence might engender, as to what belongs in it, and the disharmony this might introduce and foster. There's a LOT of value to the existing simplicity (of the interface, if not always the elephant behind it).