Same, but not necessarily in a negative way. I like pushing my hardware and software to the limits, becoming unable to push those limits would be pretty disappointing.

VMS has a very comprehensive system of quotas and limits, so a "properly" configured system wouldn't suffer those issues.

And furthermore, VMS isn't intended to be used "interactively" as such. You should be submitting work to the built-in batch queues - each with various attributes that can include the priority level. This allows the system to intelligently manage work based on a comprehensive view of the entire system - something a single user in a multi-user system can't have. If you like pushing a multi-user system to its limits, you'd be impressed with what VMS could do even way back in the 1990s.

I mean, our motherboard has an external clock generator almost entirely dedicated to pointing and laughing at CPUs with a "locked multiplier". (It's also used for PCIe 5.0)

-Emily (see HN profile for details)

Overclocking. Profile explains why. For security I prefer single cores, but have to work with whats available.

Not sure whether you're referring to your or our profile, but yes, we do overclock to a significant degree. Our motherboard has a setting to downgrade the CPU microcode to an older version that doesn't try to detect higher clock speeds and shut down. Clearly, stuff is already getting more and more locked down even as we enjoy our relative freedom in the present.

-Emily

Isn't pretty much every "cloud" nothing more than an elaborate multi-user system?

*ignoring all the system and service users in OSes like Windows and Linux.

-Emily

Its a problem I'm facing at the moment, trying to keep the data as it moves around the hw, tamper proof.

Intel CPUs are designed with certain characteristics, which can highlight thread priority attacks.

Cant comment on ARM or AMD yet, havent tested them.