FWIW It's a TV show (slash media franchise; see: https://www.americastestkitchen.com/ ) that happens to have a YT channel. I primarily know it from PBS.
I'm honestly guessing here because I'm not an insider and I don't naturally understand what's going on with this made up word, but I think it's:
1. Name is "coq" which is pronounced like "cock". Tee hee hee I'm so funny I made you say a bad word. (Opinions can differ, but this word being bad isn't a terribly rare opinion IMO.)
2. Obviously, that means Q (at the end of a word!? *) is pronounced like a hard K.
3. Enough people don't like being "forced" to say that word, pick a new name, new name is "rocq". I was confused like you for a while until I figured out the above. If q->k, then this is pronounced "rock".
4. New name learner: Why in the world would you pronounce a Q (at the end of a word) as a K? (and/or) How am I supposed to pronounce that name? I've never seen a word like that before.
5. Oh, tee hee, because of an immature joke from the old name. (Have to explain the old name and make the innuendo, to make the new name make any sense. And the new name makes so little sense, it would be very natural to ask how it came about.)
I left Google in 2022, but I remember seeing the beginning of this. The system that got built up to do all the things Google wanted to do -- previously "simple" things, orchestrated on raw hosting (Borg) -- got too big and complex. (Partially because it was too flexible, so too many projects did too many unique things, and running them grew difficult to match.) So they started adding abstraction layers, to make it "simpler". (Which as always means the common/easy case got easier, and the rare/difficult case got harder. The team I was on at the time couldn't use the new thing for (most) of what we did, because our needs were incompatible. But we did enough other compatible things that I started learning about it/using it.)
(Personally I'm sure it's doomed to failure. But partially because most all technology operates in cycles/like a pendulum. The abstraction layers will grow too onerous and limiting, and the solution will be to dive closer to the metal again.)
I used to think along these lines. But in actuality, not so much. By this definition they're the same thing. An electric motor converts electric energy into kinetic energy. A gasoline engine converts chemical energy to kinetic energy (and even more waste heat than the electric motor). (Neither of them produces power, this is of course impossible. Unless you're subtly using a very specific technical meaning of the word?) This input/output difference is a minor distinction.
Or in other words: the power that a gasoline engine uses wasn't produced in the engine, it was produced by geological and chemical means, and in a giant refinery somewhere else.
> It is really asstonishing how dev hostile those game consoles were...
What's actually astonishing is the range of things that seem strange at first, but are actually very clear and logical, IF you also understand the historical context. The path that led reasonable people to make these decisions. Here, see the comments elsewhere about how licensing worked for physical cartridges (they were expensive -- open source cartridge games doesn't make much sense). Plus a dash of copy protection and especially, read into the video game crash of the 80s. This was part of the plan to avoid shovelware (which arguably made Nintendo the success it was).
> The games would surely have been prettier as a result.
What are you basing this on? 80s and 90s era console hardware was quite restricted, and the software we got did I think all that the hardware could do.
It's just a panel of self-blinking LEDs. But they're cheap and low quality, so they start off all-on, sort of in sync, then after a while they're blinking "randomly".
So I think you want an LED string built out of lights like these?
Those look great! But they aren't the same, though I should say those are better than what seems to be out there today.
I left something out of my description above. It is complete regarding the blinking behavior. But, there is a pattern of tree limb shadows on the ceiling! And light colored walls which really makes for the best experience.
Notice how the panels Big Clive showed us have a steady rolling pattern? The incandescent lights are not that way.
Because each one works off an imprecise thermal spring, the blinking can range from a mostly on, going off for a short while, with short while being a couple seconds, to almost the opposite! That would be mostly off, illuminated for a short while.
Because the variation is so broad, the blinking pattern tends to jump around. One might see 5 lights change in close proximity, then half the tree, with parts coming back on in chunks, to another couple regions blinking off then on rapidly before the whole thing seems lit for a brief time.
The big Clive units have all LED's blinking close to the same cycle.
His varies mostly in the phase. What I describe varies mostly in the period. Some bulbs blink fast while others are much slower.
See https://superuser.com/a/1548724