I highly recommend not wasting time on this and using something like sendgrid. The cost is so little and you’ll save an inordinate amount of time

They would look the same really. The word size being 128 instead of 64 doesn’t really change anything about the architecture. It just means the proc’s registers are 128 bits in size, the system bus is 128, each RAM address and data is 128, etc. The only difference would be significantly more expensive to crunch ridiculously large numbers. So really not much benefit. I expect 64 to be the standard for quite a long time, maybe forever, because we have much bigger bottlenecks to worry about.

Dynamic RAM tracks bits by using a capacitor for each bit. Caps’ charge bleeds out so you have to top it off again every so often. The way you do that is to just write the same data back again. So it reads and writes the same data to itself every refresh. The opposition to this is static RAM which does not use a capacitor and is just a clever arrangement of transistors. No refresh needed. It’s not typically used commercially except under special requirements, though as transisters are significantly more expensive. So the refresh strategy is the better choice for consumer hardware. DRAM has been dominant for decades.

Big money through a contracting company? They take a cut, I’m sure. Still worth it?

Gut ecology is complex and everyone’s is different and it changes over time and with age and when you have to take antibiotics, etc. There’s no one sure-fire way to just eliminate it.

Sounds like engine braking