One thing I'd find interesting is the inverse view: instead of starting from a place or artifact, start from a museum and visualize the geographic footprint of its collection. It could make the collection's provenance surprisingly tangible, especially for institutions with very global holdings.
My guess is the 100% case is one of those situations where the benchmark is almost entirely measuring the tiny function itself. If half the instructions are bounds checks and branches, removing them can easily double throughput in a microbenchmark. I'd be curious what happens once that function is part of a larger pipeline where memory access or other work dominates.
USB-C reminds me of HTTP: one familiar interface hiding an enormous amount of complexity underneath.
That's great for experts, but difficult for everyone else because the same connector can expose wildly different capabilities depending on the implementation.
I think we're converging on two separate security models. One is capability minimization (filesystem, network, shell permissions). The other is context minimization. An agent that only has access to the files and memories relevant to the current task is much less dangerous even if it has the same tool permissions. We already optimize context for cost; I suspect we'll end up treating it as a security boundary too.
I think that's the practical implication. Whether it's "thinking ahead" or not, if the model can reliably predict a failing trajectory several agent turns in advance, an agent could backtrack or branch much earlier instead of spending tokens on a dead end. That seems more interesting than the terminology debate.
The benchmark debate is fair, but I think the more interesting signal is how quickly coding models are becoming a category of their own rather than just smaller frontier models. More specialization, more competition on cost, and probably a lot more benchmark gaming along the way :)