I think that the number of computers is more relevant than weight and stickers in that it determines how many people are running. If you simulate someone on a really big computer, no matter how big the computer is, you're only simulating them once.

What if the computers in question are two-dimensional like Ebborians. Then splitting a computer down the middle has the effect of going from one computer weighing x to two computers each weighing x/2. Why should this splitting operation mean that you're simulating 'twice as many people'? And how many people are you simulating if the computer is only 'partially split'?

I'm trying to figure out if there are any betting rules which would make you want to choose different ways of assigning probability, kind of like how [the Sleeping Beauty problem] was approached.

The LW consensus on Sleeping Beauty is that there is no such thing as "SB's correct subjective probability that the coin is tails" unless one specifies 'betting rules' and even then the only meaning that "subjective probability" has is "the probability assignments that prevent you from having negative expected winnings". (Where the word 'expected' in the previous sentence relates only to the coin, not the subjective probabilities.)

So in terms of the "fact vs value" or "is vs ought" distinction, there is no purely "factual" answer to Sleeping Beauty, just some strategies that maximize value.

I like this term.

It comes from the philosophy of mind.