https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage

The “5-dimensional” descriptor is only a marketing term, since the device has 3 physical dimensions and no exotic higher dimensional properties. The fractal/holographic nature of its data storage is also purely 3-dimensional. The size, orientation and three-dimensional position of the nanostructures comprise the so-called five dimensions.

☹️

/edit

Further down in the article it is a little clearer…

In this case, the 5 dimensions inside of the discs are the size and orientation in relation to the 3-dimensional position of the nanostructures. The concept of being 5-dimensional means that one disc has several different images depending on the angle that one views it from, and the magnification of the microscope used to view it.

The website even lists a little more…

In order to increase the data capacity of optical storage, there is the potential of storing more than one bit in a single voxel by implementing multiplex technology. The recently developed 5D optical storage technique uses birefringence as an extra degree of freedom – the property of a medium whereby its refractive index varies depending on the polarization and direction of incident light. Birefringence generated by the orientation and size of optical nano-gratings offers two extra dimensions, providing much higher storage capacities.

So, it’s supposedly three dimensions of position plus angle and (maybe?) polarity. So, it seems to be more than just a marketing gimmick, but I can’t find any information about the resolution of those additional two parameters, so I can’t tell if a single voxel stores two bits or two terabits.

I once heard a cook say that cooks who use salt mills aren’t cooks.

I’m really tempted to say the same thing about programmers that use llms to code.

It doesn’t give anyone access to your system or forward information from your system to outsiders, so no.

How is Spotify supposed to “handle” anything here if the rights owner tells them that this is how it works? Like, not only didn’t the first rights owner give them any means to stay updated with the rights, the new rights owner didn’t notify them either that any rights were transferred to them before taking them to court. The only way to properly handle this would have been to tell them to get fucked, but that’s not really an alternative if we’re talking about the streaming rights for Eminem. This all seems like a setup to sue them… But who am I to tell? I’m just a jerk who read an article online. You know who should decide whether or not this was a scheme to drag Spotify to court? A judge.

Oh, wait, they did. Guess it’s decided, then.

To get to it click the 3 lines or ‘more’, then find ‘feeds’ and select that

Oh, wow… I recently opened fb again and was just irritated that it didn’t show any posts by my friends. Turns out they weren’t inactive, fb just doesn’t show them by default. What a dumb waste of a platform… I mean, what is it good for if not that? Why would I watch an endless stream of ads and clickbait?

That list issue you mentioned really confused me, so here’s what’s in the article about it:

The judge also noted that Spotify’s agreement with Kobalt did not include a database of the songs it could, and could not, stream.

“Kobalt’s primary stated reason for that approach is that the catalogue of a large administrator like Kobalt would be routinely changing, rendering any list almost immediately out of date,” she wrote.

So…

• It’s not Spotify who’s behaving weirdly here but the rights holder and
• the judge doesn’t just seem to be okay with it, but this is mentioned as another thing that added to the impression that the rights holder made it deliberately hard for Spotify to properly determine if it had the rights to stream a song.

Another point (which is a result of not refreshing the screen) which the article misses is power consumption. I can use my reader for several weeks without recharging.