If you want a 10GBASE-T SFP+ module that doesn't run hot, look for one with 802.3bz support. Any module that supports 2.5G and 5G speeds has newer silicon which runs cooler.
I recently got a Grandstream GWN7615 access point to add coverage on the other side of the house from the main router. It does not meet the minimum spec listed in this article but for more modest requirements I think it's an excellent value. You can get one for well under $100. It is WiFi 5, 3x3 MIMO, and you don't need any cloud account to manage it.
Every generation of CPU has high-power and low-power variants. The i9 is a high power variant that generates a lot of heat but what you want is the low power variant.
I recommend looking for a used laptop with a Core Ultra 7 165U (<$500) or a Core Ultra 7 268V (>$1000). Maybe an HP EliteBook. Either one would be faster than your old i9 and run much cooler.
One of the main differences from Linux is BSD's separation between the base system and installed applications.
On Ubuntu, Arch, Mint, etc. there is no such distinction. Everything is made of packages, including the base system. You have packages for the kernel, the init system, logging, networking, firmware, etc. These are all versioned independently and whether or not they are considered "essential" is up to the user to decide.
On BSD, the base system is not composed of packages. It is a separate thing, with the kernel, libc, command line utilities all tightly coupled and versioned together. This allows the components to evolve together, with breaking ABI changes that would not be practical in Linux. This makes BSD better for research, which is why things like IPv6, address space randomization, SSH, jails, capabilities were developed there.
Packages are used for applications and are isolated to /usr/local. Dependency and compatibility problems only exist for packages. The base system is always there, always bootable, and you can count on being able to log in to a command line session and use the standard suite of tools. It is sort of like a Linux rescue image, except you boot off it every time.
I wish employers did not provide health insurance, even though I have a chronic medical condition. The choices of plans offered by companies is far, far smaller than the choices available to me on the open market. I don't want to have to find new health insurance if my employment situation changes, possibly leaving me with a gap in coverage. The expectation that employer-provided benefits are at no cost to the employee is a fallacy - if companies did not offer health care as a perk, they would be able to offer higher salaries instead.
The only reason American employers are in the business of offering health insurance is because they get a federal tax break. This makes health insurance cheaper to the employer than to individuals. Given this, if my employer stopped offering insurance, they couldn't increase my salary enough for me to purchase the same plan myself. I think this is unfair - I would like to get the same tax break myself, or at least eliminate the tax break altogether so I am on an even playing field with businesses. This would allow me to purchase my own health insurance at rates comparable to what I'm offered at work.
Considering the tax situation, it's curious that Intuit would not choose to take this tax break. It seems like a short term move that allows them to cut costs while exploiting the economic stickiness of employment. This move makes them less competitive for employees in the labor market, but that only affects them in the long term. In the short term, the employees they have will be hesistant and slow to find new jobs.