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.

We find Bullshit wherever there are humans. It lies in our nature to not always tell the truth, that's what we call lying. Somethymes however we care little about the truth, then we bullshit. On where specifically we find it: in close relationships, friendship, politics, science, company meetings...

I am focusing on politics and science here, since they are close to my interests and closely linked. Though some may also be applicable to other fields. I source myself on a project sponsored indirectly by the government of Germany, through the ZDF produced by a group called Maithink X. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc2ZvhBwu90 and https://populismus.online/ are some sources in German, I didn't find good sources in English, despite them existing, no doubt.

Some of the countless methods used for Bullshitting: Ad-Hominem, False Dilemma, Whataboutism, Motte & Bailey, Silent Majority, Strawman.

Ad-Hominem (on Human)

• instead of arguing on a objective, factual basis the bullshiter focuses on who is talking. It is not about what is being said, but attacking the believability of the opposing side.
• One can also mistake a true criticism (for ex: Pointing out a conflict of interest when a cigar salesman tells you that smoking isn't bad) for an ad-hominem attack.

False Dilemma (false dichotomy)

• One constructs any issue in a way that there are only two possible choices, preferably one being extremely absurd (--> Strawman). When there are in fact several different possibilities and nuances.

Whataboutism

• When discussing any issue a different one CAN be found, which is more important. The key is, that we can work on multiple things at a thyme. We also ought to be able to accept minor improvements and compromises as "good enough" or "good for now" instead of demanding the whole package, of whatever issue and solution is being discussed.
• Example: We see loads of people online complaining endlessly about the failings of the USA. (it would be a bullshit, nonetheless true, argument to say "it could be worse"). In the USA there are so many good things, just the possibility of this much complaint is a good in and of itself. On the other hand are thousands of issues, which individually can be addressed, improved, or not...: Leaden paint, abortion, education, healthcare, bipolar public discourse, involvement in politics of far-away-places, the replication crisis, traffic, an increase of children dying because of SUV's... It is Whataboutism if one is talking about ones children not being able to count past 14 when 14 years old and someone says: what about my child dying because I backed out of my driveway on my BIG TRUCK and I couldn't see them. IsN't ThAt MoRe ImPoRtAnT????
• Example: A few years I was eating in a restaurant and overheard some old dudes discussing the mass-extinction of birds in central Europe. And their argument against this was literally: "[...]Look at Portugal, they've got millions of birds flying around![...]"
• When discussing such issues it is important to stay on topic, else one will inevitably run off-track and not accomplish much in any direction.
• An important caveat: it is not whataboutism when discussing the priorities of what things are to be improved.

Motte and Baily

• When someone first claims an extreme position (out on the bailey) and then retreats (into the motte) and poses a significantly more agreeable position. Thus haveing said the unmentionable and protecting against rightful criticism.

• Example:

"I think it should be forbidden for women to wear make-up on first dates, as that would be false advertisement"

" * rightful complaints and horrified noises * "

"I-I mean it's just sad that women have to feel pressured by society to only be able to look good with make-up..."

Silent Majority (Wir sind das Volk! roughly: We are the Folk/People --> excluding others)

• A political Group/Individual poses an opinion or interest allegedly being held by a majority of a population. Naturally the only ones capable of knowing and representing said interest are this group speaking for the silent majority.
• This is often paired with an insinuation of some alleged group against said interest. Such as the corrupt elites. --> This allows them to call for a take-back of democracy from the ones corrupting the system. (Which gets even more absurd, when they already hold positions, for which they got elected by said corrupted democratic institutions)
• The alleged silent majority can be outright dismissed as unscientific. Any Scientifically sound position ought to be able to be proven and thus also disproven. But the "SILENT Majority" is well... silent. And if there is no evidence or at least reasonable suspicion (such as polling data and terrible voting percentages) that there truly is a large, untapped market of disapproval. The easier theory is that there just are a lot of people uninterested in the squabbles of politics. That they are in fact not on the side of the group calling for a silent majority to rise up, but also not on the side of those that are getting attacked by said tactic. They simple are - in marketing terms - not appealing enough.

Strawman:

• The true classic. Instead of actually talking and discussing with your oponents and potentially, god forbid, come to a productive outcome, one can simply blow their argumentation out of the water and into the realm of ridiculousness. This imagined opposing view is then much more easily disproven, and when not called out one can "win" without anything being gained. (not a "wealth creating game", not a "zero-sum-game" but instead a "below-zero-sum game.")

• Example: In Germany Statistics indicate that an average child is exposed to about 12 ads for so-called "sugar-bombs", these are explicitly aimed at those children. A strawman for those opposing any lessening to that issue could be: If they want to forbid ME from putting sugar into MY coffee...

• It is also important that the calling out of false Strawman is also a good bullshitting method.

Please keep these examples in mind, in your future travels of the political and scientific sphere. And please feel free to write your own examples, experiences and methods around this topic down below. These may be implemented into the main post, or future reworkings of it.

It is also incredibly easy to lie with data. However as a scientist we only can rely on data and need to visualize data. Science communication will absolutely be a theme that comes up in this community more often, for now take this article on the Simpsons-Paradox: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simpsons-paradox-why-you-shouldnt-blindly-believe-data-pei-ying-chua/

Geoengineering is an exceedingly controversial scientific field.

Here a quick video on it by Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-2FUXShYQQ

We are already doing it (mostly by accident):

• Since the dawn of civilization we have influenced the Landscapes of the earth, which in turn influences the atmosphere sitting atop it.

• In most of Southeast-Asia countless rice-fields get burned every year after the harvest. This creates dust- and ash-clouds for weeks on end over the entire region. These impact the health of the locals, the environment and so much more. But the burning of the rice fields has several immediate benefits as well as some science may not have studied fully yet. For example the rice husks, if unburnt will fly around everywhere and become litter and even hazards, as they are slippery. I am also conjecturing that it helps in fertilizing the fields for the next growing season and helps killing off potential harmful lifeforms, such as fungi. These would need to be controlled through the use of poisons, which by definition are also not harmless and are more expensive.

• By burning coal and oil we not only produce poisonous ash, air pollutants but also greenhouse gasses. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy however! Some of these pollutants travel into the farthest reaches of our atmosphere and reflect light, not inward, but outward. If we estimate the pollution to reduce the solar light entering the atmosphere by about a percent and the human-made greenhouse gasses to retain about 2% more radiation Energy, then we have a net-gain of only about 1%. This was the situation perhaps a few years ago. Now the Shipping industry uses cleaner fuels, the coal plants have better filters in them... The old pollution is continuously washing out of the atmosphere, raining down slight devastation everywhere also lowering the reflectivity of our atmosphere. The carbon dioxide levels meanwhile have only increased.

• As Sabine Hossenfelder mentions in the video above, India, China and others are already manipulating their weather. If we knew what we were doing many side-effects of such actions may be lessened.

There are countless yet unknown possible side-effects to any action.

• Increasing the reflectivity of our atmosphere will probably lower the efficiency of our solar generators, plant-life, and possibly have negative consequences upon animals as well.

• Releasing chemicals (CO2, Aluminium, Copper, sulphurous compounds...) into the environment always has consequences, some of these may be negligible, semi-natural (think volcanoes), or even beneficial.

• These potential side-effects are, I think, the reason for opposition of study.

We should study it.

• We should. Small-scale experiments, papers, training of experts and simulations hinder little and will no-doubt be irreplaceable just a few years into the future.

• Even if we decide to do nothing permanent on a global scale we could help out ourselves and others in emergency situations.

• Failing even that, scientific advancements are never a waste.

I think it is stupid that people cry about planned, scientific use of Geoengineering, yet to not oppose classical sources of incidental Geoengineering (burning of Fossil fuels...) to the same extent.

Due to this being my first Lemmy-community I have done some work generating several pictures beforehand, from which I've picked one each for Logo and Banner. However my artistic view never was great in any way, so I'll let people vote upon my creations and perchance someone makes something better.

All the Pictures were generated with hotpot.ai and the Banners were upscaled with imgupscaler.com

(Since I can't quite figure out how to put multiple images into the post, I'll put them in the comments)