I discovered this back in 2015 (by the version history) and put together a "one sheet" (two sided) version of the rules. The side with the card effects is especially useful.
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.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rRIiRebARNIadQaMZgimKYvW...