BrightCandle

I use a 5600g on b450 ITX board and 4x 8GB Seagate drives and see about 35W idle and about 40W average. It used to be 45W because I was forced to use a GPU in addition to a 3600 to boot (even though its headless, just a bad bios setup that I can’t fix) and getting a CPU with graphics dropped my idle consumption quite a bit. I suspect the extra wattage for your machine is probably the bigger motherboard and the less efficient CPU.

It is possible to get the machine part down into single digits wattage and then about 5W a drive is the floor without spinning them down, so the minimum you could likely see with a much less powerful CPU is about 30-35W.

There is no end to the greed of those with millions and especially billions and they aren’t content to just keep running a profitable business, they have to get all the money.

This is just the history of humanity and finances forever, the one saving grace in all this is every big business gets complacent in its money making and seeks ever increasing profit (and becomes management heavy) until a young upstart finds a way to do it a lot better and cheaper and disrupts the market. Google has become the big lumbering unable to change organisation seeking maximum profit now, its become IBM.

Make sure none of the exceptions are ticked and the Minimum number of articles to keep per feed is also 25 or below. Then its up to the cron when that runs so you might have to manually purge it and optimise the database to see what it will actually keep.

I can’t say I have ever worried about it, been running FreshRSS for years and it seems to keep its database size in check fairly well and the defaults have worked fine for me and it rarely gets above 100MB. So I know it “loosely” works in that old articles are absolutely getting purged in time but have no idea how strictly it follows these rules.

the lack of control group undergoing the same monitoring means there is a high chance of bias.

I would also want to see secondary measures such as the amount of queries people did and what they actually used it for. Might be worth tracking over time to see if there is an increase or decrease in use. These sort of secondary measures give some confidence that it is useful and its continuing to be so and its not just people behave differently when watched.

This only goes part way to solving the problem. Its good that all the ports are required to support display and power as well as connectivity, but how many screens at what resolutions and is every port capable of powering the laptop fully? These things matter in the real world. What infuriates me most is that so many manufacturers don’t actually list precisely what a port is capable of, making you guess if a displayport dongle dependent on DP pass through will work or not on the port that is remaining. So many have issues where you can’t actually run the laptop at full power from a thunderbolt dock into their thunderbolt port because they don’t support being fully powered that way.

Then there is the enormous gulf in performance between USB 3.1, 2x2 and USB 4.

The USB standards board made this mess and made too much of the ports features optional and now its a giant mess. We can start by requiring not that the ports meet a minimum requirement, but that they fully and completely specify what the actual standards are that the ports support in the specifications and require they use the existing logos next to the ports.