One is my person "gmail.com" account, and the other two go through enteprise identity providers related to my employment and their G-Suite licenses. So after I put in one of these three email addresses, I get prompted for the appropriate next step. Only one of them involves giving a password to a Google server. The other two are redirects to completely separate login systems operated by my employer.

Most of the power consumption is for the radio reception that has to detect and decode signals from multiple constantly shifting sources, dealing with their very low signal-to-noise ratios and other challenges like multipath distortion due to atmosphere and surface reflections.

It's pretty remarkable how much miniaturization has improved the efficiency of these radios. E.g. going from the early "portable" GPS units that essentially had a lead-acid car or motorcycle battery to today's wearables that run on a tiny power budget while supporting a wider range of satellite constellations and radio bands.

1. Consumer protection, product safety, and liability.

2. Truth in advertising, fraud prevention, etc.

3. Freedom of expression, association, publication, etc.

There is legal precedence in concepts like "attractive nuisance" to put the liability on a producer or owner not to allow the naive public to encounter their dangerous constructions. But we generally allow for media to illustrate such things, i.e. you can depict dangerously unprotected swimming pools, booby-traps, or poisoned food distribution in a book, image, or movie. You get in trouble when you put any of this in the real world though.

This is particularly confusing with software because of its duality as being something like speech or media that we can publish and also something like tools or products that can be manufactured, distributed, and consumed with observable results in the real world.

Who is liable when the unsafe software is distributed and converted from speech into machine action by naive end users?

It's like spontaneous implemention of thought experiments from yesteryear. I wonder if all this product-focused experimentation will accidentally impact philosophy of mind after all...

Many CPUs, not just x86, have a "physical bits" length that is less than the address size in the ISA. This saves transistor and power budget, since address buses can be smaller. Of course, it means there is a lower maximum RAM config for that design.

The software would still shuffle around the full ISA word/double word/quad word or whatever. In a typical OS, the MMU and page mapping logic would potentially interpret all the bits to map to the more limited physical address range. It didn't mean storing smaller pointers in your software data structures etc.

I'm not an expert, but I think it varies by ISA whether it is defined how the higher address order bits, above the physical range, are handled. Some may allow applications to set them for address tagging, while the CPU ignores those bits. But, others may require them to all be zeroed to get predictable behavior.

I mean, it should be possible to give it an update function which you can run from any utility host, rather than requiring a live install at the moment you want to test a new machine.

That update function could do normal package management and repository things with digital signature checks, etc.

And it could be done ahead of time to support sneaker-net scenarios, i.e. where you won't have networking on the new machine that is being burned-in/validated.

My peripherals seemed to take it. My graphics output showed some slight glitches, which I was OK with for the speed.

However, I think it was a bit unstable and would fail a correctness challenge like compiling XFree86 or the Linux kernel, which were like overnight long runs. Must have been some bit flips in there occasionally. I seem to recall that once that reality settled into my brain, I went back to the clock tripler config.

In fact, I think I used to use memtest86+ this way as it is a baked in boot option on Fedora bootable ISO images. (Or at least was in the past, I haven't checked this recently.)

I was thinking of inbred UK royalty jokes. (And, to some extent, our own Appalachia inbreeding stereotypes which overlap with UK-derived sub-populations.)

I think normal virtualization approaches are far more power efficient, at a fleet level, than any kind of cluster of laptop scenarios. You can pile in the cores and amortize the costs of memory controllers etc. over a large set of guests.

It is a funny way to get features of both worlds. One reason to want colo (rather than VMs) is for predictability, but laptops still give you the funny throughput problems, because of thermal throttling instead of competing guests.

So to whine about them shows a baseline belief that income should not be taxed at all, I guess?

That's something those western southerners told me. I don't know if a linguist would agree, but that seems to be the understanding of some actual language users...

All I know is that there is a second boundary somewhere through TX, NM, and AZ, because I've never met a native Californian who would say "y'all" non ironically.

Emphasis on looks like ;-)

Watch me not care

I think I should be able to completely cut it off from the network and/or local storage; prevent it from running even though it is installed; and prevent it from having any personalizing information about me, my movements, my network connectivity status or patterns, my device usage (i.e. screen on versus locked, any proxy like battery state of charge), etc.

I am very reluctant to install apps because I see that the platform is designed for needs and a mindset that is not my own. I do not see it as essential or preferable that an app be able to monetize my usage or really gather any telemetry at all.