This post is a personal rant

They have written:

Spotify Secures Direct Licensing Deal with Kobalt

Spotify has entered into a direct licensing deal with Kobalt, the companies announced on Wednesday, the latest of several music publishing deals the streaming service has secured in 2025.

Spotify and Kobalt were light on details in their brief announcement, only confirming the deal is a multi-year agreement and that it would "deliver greater flexibility, efficiency, value, and protections to songwriters in the U.S.

"As the largest independent music publisher dedicated to fighting for the rights of songwriters, this deal reaffirms our unwavering commitment to ensuring our songwriters are paid fairly for their work, and underscores the importance of progressive licensing models that reflect the real-world use of music across digital platforms," Kobalt CEO Laurent Hubert said in a statement. "This partnership is a step in the right direction, and we look forward to continuing to work with Spotify to increase the value of songwriter royalties."

The deal with Kobalt follows Spotify's previously announced deals with Universal Music Group and its UMPG subsidiary back in January, and a subsequent deal with Warner Music Group and Warner Chappell back in February.

The licensing deals are of note given that the music publishers and Spotify have been at odds since last year over a controversial audiobook bundling strategy from Spotify that's lead to lower songwriter royalties. The National Music Publishers Association said at its annual meeting back in June that publishers lost $230 million last year because of the bundles. Spotify said in its Loud and Clear report back in March that it's paid $4.5 billion to songwriters and publishers in the past two years.

We've always believed that better partnerships lead to better outcomes," Spotify's co-president and chief business officer Alex Norström said in a statement. "This agreement with Kobalt boosts our support of songwriters through a licensing model that unlocks new growth and will expand the way music is made and shared today."

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Daryl Hall and John Oates Legal Dispute Ends in Arbitration Demi Lovato Says Reuniting With Jonas Brothers and Performing 'Camp Rock' Songs Was "Healing"

~ 13th August ¹2025

---

I have searched for Spotify, then the first article in my search results jumps out at me: "Spotify Secures Direct Licensing Deal with Kobalt" The have a cool Picture with a Spotify logo on it. I am somewhat interested. What is cobalt, I click. I have an ad-blocker so nothing weird happens. But then I start to read the Article. My eyes start to glaze over. Now I still don't know WHAT IN THE WORLD Kobalt is. And it doesnt even interest me anymore. Why do they make an article about "thing" and not tell the reader what it even is?

This Post is not about Kobalt, I do, because of this article, not know what that is. I do know what the article is. The article is pure crap. Thanks internet.

Basically I am left near speechless, because it is just so bad, completely useless. Incompetent beyond measurement.

---

Using Claude Sonnet 4: I have found an article claiming that spotify and Kobalt have made an agreement. What is Kobalt?

It answers (beware, it cannot cite shit):

Kobalt is an independent rights management and music publishing company founded in 2000 by Swedish entrepreneur Willard Ahdritz [Wikipedia] [Music Business Worldwide]. Think of it as the middleman who stands between songwriters and the streaming platforms — but unlike traditional publishers who buy your recipe outright, Kobalt lets creators keep ownership of their copyrights [Kobalt Music Group - Music Business Worldwide] while handling the complex business of collecting royalties.

As of 2015, Kobalt was the top independent music publisher in the UK and second overall in the US [Kobalt Music Group - Wikipedia] representing over 850,000 songs from major artists including Roddy Ricch, Max Martin, Paul McCartney, and Phoebe Bridgers [Kobalt Music Group Announces Transactions to Increase Funding Capacity to More than $1 Billion]. On average, they represent over 35% of the top 100 songs and albums in both the US and UK.

The Spotify deal announced today is part of a broader trend. This new multiyear direct licensing agreement aims to deliver greater flexibility, efficiency, value, and protections to songwriters in the US [Spotify For the Record The Hollywood Reporter]. Spotify has also struck similar direct deals with Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group [Billboard - Music Business Worldwide], essentially bypassing the standard industry royalty structure to potentially pay songwriters more.

These private deals override the statutory Copyright Royalty Board rules, improving mechanical royalty payments [Kobalt inks direct licensing deal with Spotify in the US - Music Business Worldwide] — which matters because Spotify had been embroiled in legal disputes over underpaying songwriters through a controversial bundling classification of their premium service.

Praised be the Programmers that can not be held accountable for the bullshit posted on their architecture.

Personal Preamble: I really thought, this community was gone somewhen in spring, but looky-loo, I found it again. Even though I made the thing and I am the admin, I still lost it... Welp now I can try to beat this dead horse further.

Introduction: What I am talking about today is how utterly terrible the standarts are in physics. Keep in mind, that I am not a professional physicist at all and am mostly talking as someone who is very disappointed.

So what I did a year ago, was to collect a bunch of important Equations and write them down, then I took the Symbols out of the equations and wrote them as a concise list of Symbols, their names, their Physical measurements and such. It was basically a project done, to prove a point. It proves it's point still, but that helps little if its just on my hard-drive.

Now I took out the project again and threw it into the LLM called Claude Sonnet 4. And after a bit of fiddling we have this:

Physical Quantities and Units

SI Base Units

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol
Length	l, s, r, x, y, z	Meter	m
Mass	m	Kilogram	kg
Time	t	Second	s
Electric Current	I	Ampere	A
Thermodynamic Temperature	T	Kelvin	K
Amount of Substance	n	Mole	mol
Luminous Intensity	I_v	Candela	cd

Mechanics/Dynamics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Velocity	v		m/s	v = s/t
Acceleration	a		m/s²	a = v/t, a = F/m
Force	F	Newton	N	[kg⋅m/s²], F = ma
Momentum	p		kg⋅m/s	p = mv
Work, Energy	W, E	Joule	J	[N⋅m = kg⋅m²/s²], W = F⋅s
Power	P	Watt	W	[J/s = kg⋅m²/s³], P = W/t
Angle	α, β, φ, θ	Radian	rad
Angular Velocity	ω		rad/s	ω = φ/t, v = ωr
Angular Acceleration	α		rad/s²	α = ω/t
Solid Angle	Ω	Steradian	sr
Moment of Inertia	I, J, Θ		kg⋅m²
Torque	M		N⋅m	M = F⋅r
Angular Momentum	L		kg⋅m²/s	L = Iω
Spring Constant	D, k		N/m	F = -kx
Coefficient of Friction	μ		dimensionless	F_R = μN
Centripetal Force			N	F = mv²/r
Gravitational Force			N	F = Gm₁m₂/r²

Thermodynamics/Heat

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Temperature	T	Kelvin	K	(-273.15°C = 0 K)
Internal Energy	U	Joule	J
Heat	Q	Joule	J
Entropy	S		J/K
Specific Heat Capacity	c		J/(kg⋅K)	Q = mcΔT
Heat Capacity	C		J/K
Thermal Conductivity	λ, κ		W/(m⋅K)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion	α		1/K	Δl = αl₀ΔT
Universal Gas Constant	R		J/(mol⋅K)	pV = nRT
Boltzmann Constant	k_B		J/K
Stefan-Boltzmann Law			W/m²	j = σT⁴

Fluid Mechanics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Density	ρ		kg/m³	ρ = m/V
Pressure	p	Pascal	Pa	[N/m² = kg/(m⋅s²)], p = F/A
Volume	V		m³
Area	A		m²
Flow Velocity	v		m/s
Dynamic Viscosity	η		Pa⋅s	[N⋅s/m²]
Kinematic Viscosity	ν		m²/s	ν = η/ρ
Continuity Equation				ρ₁v₁A₁ = ρ₂v₂A₂
Bernoulli Equation				p + ½ρv² + ρgh = const

Electrostatics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Electric Charge	Q, q	Coulomb	C	[A⋅s]
Electric Voltage	U	Volt	V	[W/A = kg⋅m²/(A⋅s³)]
Electric Potential	φ, V	Volt	V	U = φ₁ - φ₂
Electric Field Strength	E		V/m	[N/C], E = F/q
Electric Flux Density	D		C/m²
Capacitance	C	Farad	F	[C/V = A⋅s/V], Q = CU
Permittivity	ε		F/m
Relative Permittivity	ε_r		dimensionless
Coulomb's Law				F = kq₁q₂/r²

Electrodynamics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Electric Current	I	Ampere	A	I = Q/t
Current Density	J, j		A/m²	J = I/A
Electric Resistance	R	Ohm	Ω	[V/A], U = IR
Electric Conductance	G	Siemens	S	[1/Ω], G = 1/R
Resistivity	ρ		Ω⋅m	R = ρl/A
Magnetic Flux Density	B	Tesla	T	[Wb/m² = kg/(A⋅s²)]
Magnetic Field Strength	H		A/m
Magnetic Flux	Φ	Weber	Wb	[V⋅s = kg⋅m²/(A⋅s²)]
Inductance	L	Henry	H	[Wb/A = kg⋅m²/(A²⋅s²)]
Permeability	μ		H/m
Lorentz Force			N	F = q(E + v×B)
Faraday's Law				U_ind = -dΦ/dt

Oscillations and Waves

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Frequency	f, ν	Hertz	Hz	[1/s], f = 1/T
Period	T		s	T = 1/f
Angular Frequency	ω		rad/s	ω = 2πf
Wavelength	λ		m
Wave Velocity	c, v		m/s	c = fλ
Amplitude	A		m
Phase Angle	φ, Φ	Radian	rad
Damping Coefficient	β, γ		1/s
Harmonic Oscillation				x(t) = A cos(ωt + φ)

Acoustics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Speed of Sound	c		m/s	c = fλ
Sound Pressure Level	L_p	Decibel	dB	L_p = 20 log(p/p₀)
Sound Intensity	I		W/m²
Acoustic Impedance	Z		Pa⋅s/m	Z = ρc
Doppler Effect				f' = f(v±v_observer)/(v±v_source)

Optics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Speed of Light	c		m/s	c = fλ
Refractive Index	n		dimensionless	n = c₀/c
Focal Length	f		m
Optical Power	D	Diopter	dpt	[1/m], D = 1/f
Object Distance	g		m
Image Distance	b		m
Luminous Flux	Φ_v	Lumen	lm	[cd⋅sr]
Illuminance	E_v	Lux	lx	[lm/m² = cd⋅sr/m²]
Luminance	L_v		cd/m²
Lens Equation				1/f = 1/g + 1/b
Snell's Law				n₁sin(α₁) = n₂sin(α₂)

Atomic and Nuclear Physics

Physical Quantity	Symbol	Unit	Unit Symbol	Derivation/Equation
Energy	E	Joule, Electron Volt	J, eV	1 eV = 1.602×10⁻¹⁹ J
Photon Energy	E_ph	Electron Volt	eV	E = hf = ħω
De Broglie Wavelength	λ_dB		m	λ = h/p
Compton Wavelength	λ_C		m	λ_C = h/(m_e c)
Rest Energy	E_0		eV, J	E₀ = mc²
Binding Energy	B.E.		eV, MeV
Planck Constant	h		J⋅s	6.626×10⁻³⁴ J⋅s
Reduced Planck Constant	ħ		J⋅s	h/(2π)
Number of Particles	N		dimensionless
Activity	A	Becquerel	Bq	[1/s], A = λN
Decay Constant	λ		1/s	N(t) = N₀e^(-λt)
Half-life	t_{1/2}		s	t_{1/2} = ln(2)/λ
Cross Section	σ	Barn	b	[10⁻²⁴ cm²]
Atomic Mass Unit	m	Atomic Mass Unit	u	1 u = 1.661×10⁻²⁷ kg
Bohr Radius	a₀		m	5.292×10⁻¹¹ m
Rydberg Energy	Ry		eV	13.61 eV
Photoelectric Effect				E_kin = hf - W

Important Constants

Constant	Symbol	Value	Unit
Speed of Light	c	2.998×10⁸	m/s
Planck Constant	h	6.626×10⁻³⁴	J⋅s
Elementary Charge	e	1.602×10⁻¹⁹	C
Electron Mass	m_e	9.109×10⁻³¹	kg
Proton Mass	m_p	1.673×10⁻²⁷	kg
Avogadro Constant	N_A	6.022×10²³	1/mol

It worked! Praised be the programming gods! One thing that is technically lacking is the Little vector-indication-arrow above F for Force, B for magnetic field... but that is a problem of the LLM.

Now that we all see the same thing in front of our peepers, I can properly begin to criticice the whole thing, but only after giving context and orientation. It always drives me nuts when someone introduces a complicated graph and doesn't give people the information or the thyme to understand it. (Like a simple explanation of what is where on a graph can already significantly help in introducing people to the thing that is being talked about but no, the thyme is apparently running out or something and we'd be much better of, with having just glanced at the best method of getting the information to the brain instead of actually analyzing it.)

Even though you probably have enough thyme to analyze it yourself, I will still give you a rundown of the system. Context: This is all completelly settled science, this is basically "modern" Physics, in the sense that modern was the early 20th century. We have no Computers, no Quantum Mechanics, just basic physics. It actually is a list capable of solving nearly any simple engineering problem you may encounter! Well not really. If you want to disprove all of science, any of these mathematical statements are a good start, since they have been baked in deeply. Conversely it is incredibly difficult to actually disprove any of it to a rigorous degree. It's as proven as it can get in science, with the caveat that there absolutely still is more to say about any topic, but the principle is correct, just somewhere there are little details.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you'd need quantum Physics or transistor knowledge, then you probably also have studied it for a while in uni and this place is not the place you should get your information about these topics from, yes?

This also means, that all of the confusion I will later unearth, has been happening exactly like this for 100 years and has not been fixed, so either I am seeing a problem others are ignoring, or I see a solution others haven't seen yet.

Explanation/Orientation: We have the Mathemagical representation, symbol, of the physical world, a "model" so to say, on the left side. Typically there is some Name for a Phenomena and there is a Letter ascribed to it, fairly arbitrairaly. On the Other side we have the thing you can touch and measure. The meter for example. These are often somewhat connected to the name of the person who did some thinking about it in years yonder. Like the measurable force-unid is called Newton. Oftenthymes someone will do a calculation only with the "models", then they will introduce the measurements, shorten all the units and, if they did it right, they end up with another meausurement-unit (like m/s).

I don't quite understand, why that step of abstraction is necessary, I do however know the it creates confusion. Here are some criticisms and rocommendations I have:

• The Symbols are ill-related to the referential Topics.
• A better approach, at least for constants, would be something like a common letter (c, for constant), then a subscript for which it concerns itself with. (c_Boltzmann, c_Lightspeed, c_EarthGravityApprox, c_Spring, etc.)
• You currently see a letter in an equation (v, q, d, k, s, t, σ, ρ, λ, ...) and you do not know where it belongs or what it is trying to say, this is inefficient and a problem.
• This could partially be alleviated by ALWAYS writing, for example all physical measurements and their direct calculations inside a [ ] like so: [N = m/s² * kg]. Here you see that the ambiguous letters, through the context of the surrounding brackets. You know its not mass/square_distance or something like that, but the SI-units or other standart units being used to express a physical thing that could happen in the real world.
• Capacitance, Symbol C, Unit F (Farad); Electric Charge, Symbol Q, Unit C (Coulomb). IF THESE APPEAR ON THE SAME PAGE I AM GOING TO CONFUSE THEM.
• Permeability is just a mess.
• Whats often written as a V? Volume, Voltage, Volt, Velocity...
• Some of the greek Letters end up being very confusing and easy to confuse with each other. What are ξ and ζ? and why do they look like someone squished a ω onto my papers when I write one of those by hand?
• WHY are there 4 different Deltas with very similar, but I am assured they are different, meanings? Δ, δ, ∂ and d! Four! and they all mean something different aparently? but they also all are just the non-capital letter Delta? Madness.
• There appears to be no trying to unify and standardize these things! Newton would use ẋ, Leibniz dx/dt, another ∂x/∂t, or even x'
• exponentials: exp(x), e^x, e², 10², 10^2...
• Bad use of an exclamation mark after a number like 80! is such a big number, i doubt you've meant what you've written but what about 10! or 5! ? how would one know whether they just wanted to emphasize the number or use the factorial?
• not knowing how exponentials work, like two data points CANNOT be exponential, you neeed at leat three of them to begin describing an exponential growth, decay... It is somewhat infuriating, but in the end not that important.
• Complex numbers. Whats the letter to use? it i, no question, yes? oh if it werent a question, then why is it on the list???
• Degrees, Radian, Gon, π, Sterradian, all are used for the "same" thing, describing how far a circle is along its circleness.
• Sinus, Cosinus, Tangens. Nobody understands them.
• π vs τ
• You could make an iceberg out of this list
• there is Redshift z, but also Redshift Δλ/λ
• The Hubble constant is not constant, which would be excusable if it werent named constant but like... something with simultanious? Simult? Simconstant? Meanst? its the same everywhere now, but changes over thyme, so we call it by one simple new name, to differentiate it from true constants, which we suspect to be unchangable.
• Positions in coordinate systems. Computers count up, when they move down similarily in a matrix or a data set, but in physical space, usually x is along, but it can also be to go vertical.
• Energy is a mess there are Joule, Kalorie, eV, kWh, BTU... Then there are the cursed units lik KW/h/Year...
• EVERYTHING JUST GETS WORSE WHEN YOU TALK TO AN AMERICAN! They have their "intuitive" units, but the more abstracted meters have the advantage of being simpler to calculate with and being more definitevely defined.
• How do you write vectors? we but an arrow above it, but others write them in bold, or underline them...
• Any standaartization in the field of phyiscs also has to adhere to standarts that are further along, like in the field of chemistry, where they have actual international agencies that do stuff and it reaches even students in normal schools.

There are some standartization agencies and commities, but obviously there has yet to be any success in merging the whole system into a coherent whole.

Ultimately what is needed is some discipline by everyone to adhere to the correct units and then we maybe could actually advance.

Here are two videos by Joseph Newton about cursed units, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfIXUjkYqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg7xe8MkJHs

Have a good day, and praise the programmers, that build upon layer and layer of magic and don't need to concern themselves with the lower levels of the simulation.