I don't know what your question is about?

I would have hoped that by now it was obvious that we are talking about a _specific_ weak form of the EMH that takes friction into account?

What is your whole first paragraph about? Who are you trying to convince? Where's the strawman that claimed that the strongest version of EMH that you can imagine is literally true?

There's no single weak form of EMH that could be accurate or inaccurate: there are many versions of the EMH in various strengths and dimensions (that can be accurate or inaccurate).

To be more specific: Jane Street believes (or acts lie they believe) that markets are at least efficient enough that it takes a lot of effort for them to make money. As a very, very weak form: someone doing chart astrology, eh, I mean technical analysis, on S&P 500 stocks won't beat the market. But even much stronger versions than this are defensible.

The real strong forms that say that all information is preciously reflected in profits is a simplifying assumption you can sometimes make to make your life easier. Just like you sometimes neglect friction in physics. But when you want to decide how long your train needs to emergency brake, you kinda need to take friction into account. Similarly, when trying to make money in the market or trying to understand how others like Jane Street make money, the strongest EMH is not a good guide.

Question is about EMH and how you expect efficiency to be achieved absent profit for collecting the information.

There are 3 accepted forms of EMH. I'm talking about weak form - just price history and nothing else. E.g. formulaic alpha have demonstrable predictive value in modeling.

All that to say you believe trading profits are real. Maybe you just need to learn more about what a buy side alpha quant at two sigma does for a living. Trading models can be robust and exploit real inefficiencies. Weak form EMH is demonstrably false on it's face, as you agree.