The thing is Twitter costs, even at its height, under a billion a year to run.
He could pull all advertising and run it to the end of his life as a hobby.
But he can't have that, because the line must go up and the workers must cower in fear whenever their boss stalks the building.
It may well be the case that they're similar or even swapped now. I can see that the N100 is pretty low power compared to the newest low end AMD chips, but then the AMD chips are better in terms of what they can do.
This one reckons they're pretty similar.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intels_idle_power_consumption_whole/
This one reckons Intel are better.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809852
I doubt there's much in it either way. Even if AMD are ahead now, laptops don't get replaced right away, normies replace shit when it fails or is too slow to run whatever shit Google shoehorned into Chrome this year, and the most popular laptops are probably the ones with the lowest sticker price.
That's under load. At Idle (which is where your average home PC will spend most of it's time) I think Intel has the edge still.
It's certainly a consideration for a battery device. Watching a video reading emails or staring at a spreadsheet will likely have better battery life than a similar spec AMD device.
We've reached a point where most everyday computing tasks can be handled by a cheapo N100 mini PC.
I haven't got around to playing it yet, but what you've described sounds a lot like The Witcher 3 for me.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it enough to finish pretty much everything (except all the Skellige question marks which thoroughly outstayed their welcome), and Hearts of Stone is better than Blood and Wine, but the gameplay was pretty flat throughout, and most of my enjoyment was in the cutscenes and dialogue and following threads to their inevitably grim conclusions. It's not a game that I would ever replay.
It does seem like a very obvious thing to add, and the mind boggles at how it wasn't there to start with.
It's taken this long for Intel to lose gamer trust.
Intel also have lower power consumption iirc, which is useful for laptops etc.
AMD have the best server chips: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
You have to remember that most people aren't "choosing a CPU" as much as buying a PC. If the majority of pre-build retail PCs have Intel, then the majority of purchases will be Intel.
TF2 hats, CS:GO and the scammy gambling sites it enabled, DOTA2.
None of this is really better than what Fortnite does, and there's probably no big players in the gaming market with clean hands when it comes to this kind of thing. The successes take all the attention, and Fortnite wasn't even that big until they dropped the Battle Royale formula into it after the sudden popularity of PUBG.
But for that you can buy a mini PC that runs it locally. What the fuck is this even for?
So did Valve but apparently that's fine.
And think that is what gave them success, rather than the millions of dollars of their father's money.
The UK is a lot further north, and it's probably not a massive loss.
It was enough to prevent me getting "free" solar panels (while that was a thing) though, so I'm still salty about that.
Don't want to get lumbered with a bunch of old stock now, do you?