There has been:

• Watch Dogs
• Watch Dogs 2
• Watch Dogs: Legion

I can’t see this “news” reported anywhere else

Clearly not trying very hard:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036 (8:40, “Russian TV airs fake video blaming Ukraine for Moscow attack”)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/03/deepfake-video-terror-moscow-putin-ukraine-claims/

https://www.tf1info.fr/international/entre-les-speculations-de-simonyan-les-commentaires-de-soloviev-et-le-deepfake-sur-les-antennes-russes-comment-les-relais-pro-russes-alimentent-la-piste-ukrainienne-apres-la-fusillade-pres-de-moscou-2290401.html

https://www.cdt.ch/news/mondo/attentato-al-crocus-city-hall-la-tv-russa-incolpa-kiev-ma-con-un-filmato-fake-346781

and The Sun is notorious for making stuff up

And this article cites — with direct link — a BBC reporter’s X post. Well, who is actually “making stuff up” here…

Yet, BBC Verify journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh stated that an AI-generated audio was dubbed over a mismatch of two recent Ukrainian TV interviews.

Exposing the sham, he wrote on X: "The deepfake video has in fact been created as a composite of two recent interviews published in the last few days with Danilov and Ukraine's military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov.

In other words, there may be downsides just to placing CS within an engineering school, let alone making it an independent college. Left entirely to themselves, computer scientists can forget that computers are supposed to be tools that help people. Georgia Tech’s College of Computing worked “because the culture was always outward-looking. We sought to use computing to solve others’ problems,” Guzdial said. But that may have been a momentary success. Now, at Michigan, he is trying to rebuild computing education from scratch, for students in fields such as French and sociology. He wants them to understand it as a means of self-expression or achieving justice—and not just a way of making software, or money.

—

Early in my undergraduate career, I decided to abandon CS as a major. Even as an undergraduate, I already had a side job in what would become the internet industry, and computer science, as an academic field, felt theoretical and unnecessary. Reasoning that I could easily get a job as a computer professional no matter what it said on my degree, I decided to study other things while I had the chance.

I have a strong memory of processing the paperwork to drop my computer-science major in college, in favor of philosophy. I walked down a quiet, blue-tiled hallway of the engineering building. All the faculty doors were closed, although the click-click of mechanical keyboards could be heard behind many of them. I knocked on my adviser’s door; she opened it, silently signed my paperwork without inviting me in, and closed the door again. The keyboard tapping resumed. The whole experience was a product of its time, when computer science was a field composed of oddball characters, working by themselves, and largely disconnected from what was happening in the world at large. Almost 30 years later, their projects have turned into the infrastructure of our daily lives. Want to find a job? That’s LinkedIn. Keep in touch? Gmail, or Instagram. Get news? A website like this one, we hope, but perhaps TikTok. My university uses a software service sold by a tech company to run its courses. Some things have been made easier with computing. Others have been changed to serve another end, like scaling up an online business.

The struggle to figure out the best organizational structure for computing education is, in a way, a microcosm of the struggle under way in the computing sector at large. For decades, computers were tools used to accomplish tasks better and more efficiently. Then computing became the way we work and live. It became our culture, and we began doing what computers made possible, rather than using computers to solve problems defined outside their purview. Tech moguls became famous, wealthy, and powerful. So did CS academics (relatively speaking). The success of the latter—in terms of rising student enrollments, research output, and fundraising dollars—both sustains and justifies their growing influence on campus.

If computing colleges have erred, it may be in failing to exert their power with even greater zeal. For all their talk of growth and expansion within academia, the computing deans’ ambitions seem remarkably modest. Martial Hebert, the dean of Carnegie Mellon’s computing school, almost sounded like he was talking about the liberal arts when he told me that CS is “a rich tapestry of disciplines” that “goes far beyond computers and coding.” But the seven departments in his school correspond to the traditional, core aspects of computing plus computational biology. They do not include history, for example, or finance. Bala and Isbell talked about incorporating law, policy, and psychology into their programs of study, but only in the form of hiring individual professors into more traditional CS divisions. None of the deans I spoke with aspires to launch, say, a department of art within their college of computing, or one of politics, sociology, or film. Their vision does not reflect the idea that computing can or should be a superordinate realm of scholarship, on the order of the arts or engineering. Rather, they are proceeding as though it were a technical school for producing a certain variety of very well-paid professionals. A computing college deserving of the name wouldn’t just provide deeper coursework in CS and its closely adjacent fields; it would expand and reinvent other, seemingly remote disciplines for the age of computation.

Near the end of our conversation, Isbell mentioned the engineering fallacy, which he summarized like this: Someone asks you to solve a problem, and you solve it without asking if it’s a problem worth solving. I used to think computing education might be stuck in a nesting-doll version of the engineer’s fallacy, in which CS departments have been asked to train more software engineers without considering whether more software engineers are really what the world needs. Now I worry that they have a bigger problem to address: how to make computer people care about everything else as much as they care about computers.

Ian Bogost is a contributing writer at The Atlantic.

Well, if you have a constructive suggestion which site to link instead regarding kernel developments, I am all ears:

• Not sure that raw commits are readable or have sufficient context for non kernel development readers here
• LWN, particularly timely/kernel development news there, has gone mostly paywall, and there will be (legitimate) complaint if I link articles needing a LWN subscription

There is pre-existing context and criticism. And it is not about, or just being the perception of “this journalist”:

https://www.theverge.com/23992402/geoff-keighley-the-game-awards-layoffs

https://www.levelup.com/en/news/777306/He-doesnt-represent-us-devs-and-players-deliver-harsh-criticism-of-Geoff-Keighley-on-social-networks

https://videogames.si.com/features/games-industry-deserves-better-than-geoff-keighley

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/the-game-awards-2023-needs-to-acknowledge-industrys-lay-offs-problem

https://dotesports.com/the-game-awards/news/the-game-awards-layoffs-developers-no-respect

The problems also goes beyond just the layoffs, but his overt coziness and preferential treatment of large studios, over even the ones that actually won the award he is presiding over, and are supposed to be celebrated:

https://insider-gaming.com/geoff-keighley-shows-cowardice-at-the-game-awards/

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-biggest-problem-at-this-years-game-awards-was-disrespecting-the-winners/

https://www.eurogamer.net/the-game-awards-speeches-were-too-short-geoff-keighley-admits

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-game-awards-criticized-for-giving-winners-little-time-to-speak-amid-silence-on-industry-layoffs

https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/dec/04/sub-ire-as-hacks-slash-word-length-getting-the-skinny-on-thinnernyms

My motivation was the “dead wrong expecting someone to step up like adults in the room” part.

Retention, or the lack thereof, when cold-stored.

In term of SD or standard NAND, not even Nintendo does that. Nintendo builds Macronix XtraROM in their Game Card, which is some proprietary Flash memory with claimed 20 year cold storage retention. And they introduced the 64 GB version only after a lengthy delay, in 2020. So it seems that the (lack of) cold storage performance of standard NAND Flash is viewed by some in the industry as not ready for prime time. Macronix discussed it many years back in a DigiTimes article: https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120713PR201.html.

And Sony and Microsoft are both still building Blu-ray-based consoles.

The was a GNOME FAQ that describes “guh-NOME” or IPA /ɡˈnəʊm/ as the official pronunciation, due to the emphasis of G as GNU. It does acknowledge that many pronounce it “NOME” or /nəʊm/: https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/astaff/project/aui/html/pronunciation.html

Undervolting provides the chip with additional power and thermal headroom, and can improved situations where otherwise throttling sets in.

FSFE’s statement:

• https://fsfe.org/news/2023/news-20231011-01.en.html

Some related personal blogs I noticed:

• https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html
• https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/68004.html

Note that Lawrence Yang said in March “a true next-gen Deck with a significant bump in horsepower wouldn’t be for a few years.” (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-community-continues-to-blow-our-minds-valve-talk-the-steam-deck-one-year-on)