Agreed about the wording. I understand adapting reporting to appeal to a wider, younger audience, but it also cheapens and lessens the importance of the reporting.

There's a long history in news of using a play on words for your story title to make it more catchy. I wonder if it's just that it's a less common term in your own experience that makes it more objectionable?

I could see Ars Technica making the same pun, and I wonder if they would get as much flak.

It's not just a less common term, it's a recently minted one, as in maybe 20 years ago. It's vernacular that made its way into spaces like twitter to get more widespread and mainstream adoption. I'm sure people who aren't part of those adoptive subcultures are frequently puzzled when they encounter the phrase, because it's grammatically obtuse.