All problems are unfixable when you deare them to be so from the outset.

Journalism != Software Development. Your analogy sucks.

You keep bringing this up, these "for anybody?" or "NOBODY needs this?" kind of comments. It's not that nobody has a use for it, it's that not enough people have a use for it to result in much in the way of generally available products.
Most corporations would rather you use a separate device entirely, and most end-users don't have the need.
The use-case you're describing is pretty narrow. It does not seem to justify the cost of designing and producing what you describe.
More to the point, if these corporations trust virtualization to run their secured production servers (and by-and-large, they do) why would they not trust it for end-user devices? It is much cheaper and less complex to install a hypervisor on commodity hardware than it is to manage the dual-architecture device you are describing.
Especially for something that does not need to be that performant.

It would be complex because you are doubling the number of general-purpose computers in the product. It would be huge because you'd have to make room for the added hardware. I'm not gonna comment on stupid, because that's subjective here.
You are adding (at minumum):

• The SOC
• cable/bus routing for the SOC
• A USB-Aware, multi-monitor KVM for the SOC
• Cooling/ventilation considerations for the SOC
• WIFI antenna or harware switching component for the WIFI antenna
• Same for Bluetooth
• Power management components (shared battery connections, or a separate battery, power/reset button switching/sharing, acpi component sharing [e.g. closed lid], shared or separate battery/power monitoring) for the SOC
• Signal/interference considerations for the SOC
• Audio port switching for the SOC
• Storage for the SOC (for installing the software you want to use on the insecure side)

This would result in one or more of:

• Increased footprint (to make room for the above)
• Reduced performance (as additional/better main system components are crowded by SOC components)
• Increased power consumption (to keep the SOC always-on, so that you can simply switch back and forth)
• Increased maintenance (more complex systems are more breakage prone, and harder to repair, you'd have to do software maintenance on both systems)

It's not that NOBODY would benefit, but not enough people would benefit from a secondary SOC integrated into their laptop(clearly you would benefit), it's that not nearly enough people would benefit from this for any laptop manufacturer to design, test, produce and market this. This would be a very niche market, and most people would be better served by entirely separate devices.

Although, really, either a VM, dual-boot, or an entirely separate physical system are all far better solutions.

Buy an old laptop (an older one with plenty of room in the shell) Gut it. Buy a nice ARM single-board computer (for your main OS, windows 10 for ARM since you mentioned win10) Buy a raspberry Pi for your secondary OS. Buy a cheap KVM switch, gut it. Get some batteries, a charging unit, etc. Have fun soldering.

• choices, that doesn't make them good choices.
  No memory protection, run everything in ring 0?
  Great, assuming I am a perfect programmer, and only ever run my own code.
  This only works at all because there is no networking support and no third party applications.
  
  So, looking at the list of "What can we learn if we are only willing to listen?"
  
  Installation - Installation is quick and easy. Boot completes in a second.
  Because there's no hardware support, there's little to initialize. Since everything runs at ring 0 (essentially, in the kernel) there's very little to process management. Calling this a plus is kind of like saying cutting off your legs is a great way to lose weight.
  You can make an argument that feature-bloat is a bad thing, and that simplification would be valuable to users, but this is not that argument.
  
  Shell/File Explorer - why would I *want* a custom, c-like, language for my shell? The shell is where I launch things, or do quick and dirty scripting at the most. If I want to develop applications, I'm happy to open a separate dev environment, if it means I don't have to apply C syntax to every command I run.
  
  Hypertext - It looks like a reinvention of .docx, without the compression or any concept of security (don't click any doldoc links you didn't write yourself).
  
  Hardware and Security - none and none. You cannot spin this into a positive.

Yes. Epecially in IT where lots of consoles for machines without conventional 'heads' run as a java applet in a webpage hosted on the controller.

...that none of the people arguing that we should see the movie make the case that in supporting Orson Scott Card (who vehemently opposes gay marriage) we would also be supporting Harrison Ford, who supports them.

How is my decision to eat less Chik-Fil-A different from your decision to eat more?

No. Go reread the article - he uses terms like "any means necessary" and "If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die." That's not encouraging voting. That's something else.

Also, again
If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

He's talking about the system.

No. It was not. Twenty years ago, the standard position for almost all Americans might have been that gay marriage should not be allowed. If that was all this was, I might even see the movie. The issue I have is with this.

That's Orson Scott Card saying that if gay marriage is ever legalized he will act to the best of his ability to destroy the US government.
You misunderstand by thinking that I think all bigotry is equal.
I don't care how sensitive his fiction is, if he essentially threatens armed revolt over the issue I have issues with supporting him in any way. As far as I know, he's never retracted those sentiments.
This also makes his "it's moot" statement ring all the more false, because it's at this point he would (if his prior article is at all honest) begin using his resources for really dangerous and objectionable things.

1) Feel free to organize a boycott of those writers, producers, directors and actors. If that limits your viewing options, that's the price you pay. People boycotting Card are willing to pay that price.
2) Card's call for 'tolerance' after his intolerance (advocating revolution over the legalization of gay marriage can hardly be viewed as tolerant of gay people) has a definite element of hypocrisy.

Personally, I think his use of the word 'tolerance' in this instance was purely a rhetorical ploy, but still hypocritical one.