Last month our city council rezoned the block behind the old bus depot in a nine-minute vote. Fourteen people attended, in person and by webcam combined. Three days earlier a congressional hearing on a subject with no direct bearing on anyone in that room pulled national coverage across every outlet I read.

I don’t think the hearing was unimportant. I think we’ve collectively decided that stakes are set by audience size instead of the other way around. The zoning vote will change parking, rent, and traffic for thousands of people who never got a notification. It just didn’t have a camera pointed at it.

Nvidia reported after the bell and the stock moved four percent before the call even started, entirely on a leaked line from a supplier note. By the time management said a word, the market had already decided what mattered.

The rest of the call — guidance, margins, the analyst Q&A — moved the stock about half a percent, combined. there’s more, if you care →

The interesting question isn’t whether the market is efficient. It’s whether the market prices in information or prices in narratives about information. The supplier note wasn’t more accurate than the earnings report. It was earlier. And in a market built on speed, earlier wins even when it’s wrong.

A lab I won’t name shipped a smaller, slower version of their flagship model last week and called it an upgrade. It is, for almost everyone. I spent the weekend figuring out why that’s the more interesting story than the frontier model it’s not … more, eventually →

The full piece breaks down why capability and usefulness diverge, why the frontier race is a distraction for most real applications, and what happens when the industry realizes the bottleneck isn’t model size — it’s the unglamorous layer nobody wanted to invest in.

Enter a birth year. Each square is one week. Filled squares are spent; the rest assumes eighty years, which is a guess, not a promise.