diff --git a/docs/blog/posts/kona-2023-report.md b/docs/blog/posts/kona-2023-report.md
index fdb9ecd8..1c3f0bdc 100644
--- a/docs/blog/posts/kona-2023-report.md
+++ b/docs/blog/posts/kona-2023-report.md
@@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ The following poll was taken by the LEWG:
 !!! question "LEWG POLL: Given that our time is limited, more time should be promised for a quantities and units library"
 
     | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
-    |-------------------|----------|---------|---------|------------------|
-    | 10                | 13       | 4       | 0       | 0                |
+    |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+    |        10         |    13    |    4    |    0    |        0         |
 
     Attendance: 22 + 6
 
diff --git a/docs/blog/posts/tokyo-2024-report.md b/docs/blog/posts/tokyo-2024-report.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a643fd43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/blog/posts/tokyo-2024-report.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+---
+date: 2024-04-15
+authors:
+ - mpusz
+categories:
+ - WG21
+---
+
+# Report from the Tokyo 2024 ISO C++ Committee meeting
+
+The Tokyo 2024 meeting was a very important step in the standardization of this library. Several
+WG21 groups reviewed proposals, and the feedback was really good.
+
+<!-- more -->
+
+## [P3045R0: Quantities and units library](https://wg21.link/p3045r0)
+
+The Study Group 6 (Numerics) discussed the proposal for several hours. The initial feedback
+was positive. There were some concerns related to the description and design of the affine
+space abstractions in the library. Besides that, the people in the room liked what they saw.
+
+We run a few polls in SG6 as well:
+
+!!! question "POLL: The syntax `number * unit` is the right solution for constructing quantities. Not allowing reordering the operands is correct."
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         5         |    4     |    1    |    0    |        1         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Not defining any UDLs is the right solution."
+
+  No objection to unanimous consent.
+
+The paper was also briefly discussed in SG18 LEWG Incubator, and the initial feedback was also
+positive. No polls were taken.
+
+SG16 Unicode does not meet during ISO C++ Committee F2F meetings. Still, the text output chapter paper
+was also reviewed by it during an online meeting before Tokyo. We got good feedback and
+are expected to return with the updated version. No polls were taken.
+
+
+## [P30942R1: `std::basic_fixed_string`](https://wg21.link/p3094r1)
+
+In the SG18 LEWG Incubator, before we started to talk about [P3045R0](https://wg21.link/p3045r0),
+we spent a few hours discussing the design of the `std::basic_fixed_string`, which is proposed for
+C++26. The group gave excellent feedback, and if the R2 version addresses it properly, the
+paper is expected to progress to LEWG (Library Evolution Working Group) in St. Louis.
+
+Plenty of polls were taken:
+
+!!! question "POLL: We should promise more committee time to pursuing std::basic_fixed_string, knowing that our time is scarce and this will leave less time for other work."
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |        11         |    0     |    0    |    0    |        0         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Should the constructor from a string literal be consteval?"
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         6         |    3     |    2    |    0    |        0         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Do we want to add .view()?"
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         3         |    5     |    3    |    0    |        0         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Do we want the .size member to be an integral_constant<size_t, N> (and .empty to be bool_constant<N==0>)?"
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         5         |    2     |    2    |    2    |        0         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Should the index operator[] return a reference to const?"
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         2         |    2     |    3    |    3    |        0         |
+
+!!! question "POLL: Should the constructor from a string literal have a precondition that txt[N] == 0?"
+
+  | Strongly in Favor | In favor | Neutral | Against | Strongly Against |
+  |:-----------------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------:|
+  |         6         |    1     |    2    |    0    |        2         |