There is another area that computer scientists are not studying much and namely new architectures for computers. Is Von Neumann the best and only option? It

There is another area that computer scientists are not studying much and namely new architectures for computers. Is Von Neumann the best and only option? It seems so called computer scientists are not really studying computers at all, they are studying applications. The fundamental science of computers is the hardware architecture and the operating system, and computer science almost completely ignores fundamental basic research in both of them. It is also a worry that the hidden code in the SoC's subsystems might be hidden for a reason, namely to give control of computers to someone other than the user and OS. That seems a perfect way to compromise all computers while giving an illusion of security. That's why the Intel Management System has been controversial (TPM's also), but in truth there are many processors on the SoC's that each have enormous security implications that the OS does not control. This has been an issue for decades. I remember people running code on the floppy drive MCU for Amiga's, so this has been known about for a long time. Cell phones are intentionally designed so the OS has no control over basic cellular radio functionality. There is a totally separate processor with its own non-public firmware controlling the radio. Whoever writes the code for these subsystems has enormous power with very little oversight.