Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 274 posts

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#191

Post by absoluteharam »

sothatsit wrote: post #72
alphager wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if Moore's law was still in effect and the computer resources required stayed the same and compute stayed as efficient per watt (neither is true), it would just halve compute costs every 18 months. You're able to read about people hitting $4000 costs/month on the $200 plan upthread. That's 8 years until it's cost effective. Are they really ready to burn money for 8 years?

I think people also expect models to be optimised over time. For example, the 5x drop in cost of o3 was probably due to some optimisation on OpenAI's end (although I'm sure they had business reasons for dropping the price as well). Small models have also been improving steadily in ability, so it is feasible that a task that needs Claude Opus today could be done by Sonnet in a year's time. This trend of model "efficie…

[dead]

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#192

Post by mlsu »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #150
codebje wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.

My understanding is that much of the established embedded world has moved to any one flavour of GCC or (more commonly) Clang, just because maintaining a proprietary optimising compiler is too much effort than just modifying (and eventually contributing to) Clang.

Tough for me to speak about embedded in general, but many companies are on vendor toolchains or paid compilers by choice, and it is the right choice to make given the tradeoffs involved.

IAR for example is simply a fantastic compiler. It produces more compact binaries that use less memory than GCC, with lots and lots of hardware support and noticeably better debugging. Many companies have systems-engineering deadlines which are much less amenable to beta quality software, fewer software engineering resources to deal with GCC or build-chain quirks (often, overworked EEs writing firmware), and also a strong desire due to BOM cost to use cheaper/less dense parts. And if there is a compiler bug or quirk, there is someone on the other end of the line who will actually pick up the phone when you call.

That said, some of those toolchain+IDE combos absolutely do suck in the embedded world, mostly the vendor-provided ones (makes sense, silicon manufacturers usually aren't very good at or care much about software, as it turns out).

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#193

Post by chewz »

thr0waway001 wrote: post #24

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Gotta start doing some thinking.

People who complain that Claude Code Max $200 isn't enough are first to let go in my opinion.

They have have either shitty codebase or can't narrow down the scope. Or both. Not the kind of folks you want on your team.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#194

Post by janejeon »

nmadden wrote: post #185
com2kid wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've just done the work to tailor it specifically for proper tool using during coding. Once other models catch up, they will not be able to be so stingy on limits. I don't subscribe to the $100 a month plan, I am paying API usage pricing. Accordingly I have learned how to be much more careful with Claude Code than I think other users are. The first day I used it, Claude got stuck in a loop trying to fix a proble…

> The first day I used it, Claude got stuck in a loop trying to fix a problem using the same 2 incorrect solutions again and again and burnt through $30 of API credits before I realized things were very wrong and I stopped it. The worse it performs, the more you pay. That’s a hell of a business model. Will users tolerate that for long?

> The worse it performs, the more you pay. That’s a hell of a business model. Will users tolerate that for long?

I mean, AWS seems to be doing fine with that business model.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#195

Post by [deleted] »

nmadden wrote: post #185
com2kid wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've just done the work to tailor it specifically for proper tool using during coding. Once other models catch up, they will not be able to be so stingy on limits. I don't subscribe to the $100 a month plan, I am paying API usage pricing. Accordingly I have learned how to be much more careful with Claude Code than I think other users are. The first day I used it, Claude got stuck in a loop trying to fix a proble…

> The first day I used it, Claude got stuck in a loop trying to fix a problem using the same 2 incorrect solutions again and again and burnt through $30 of API credits before I realized things were very wrong and I stopped it. The worse it performs, the more you pay. That’s a hell of a business model. Will users tolerate that for long?

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#197

Post by codebje »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #150
codebje wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.

My understanding is that much of the established embedded world has moved to any one flavour of GCC or (more commonly) Clang, just because maintaining a proprietary optimising compiler is too much effort than just modifying (and eventually contributing to) Clang.

8051s pretty much mean Keil - they used to do license dongles, but it's all online now. You really don't get much more established than the 8051. If you pick up any cheap electronic product and crack it open to find a low part count PCB with a black epoxy blob on it, chances are very good there's an 8051 core with a mask ROM under the blob.

(Also AVR/PIC compiler from Microchip had a dongle as recently as February this year, and it looks like it's still available for sale even though its license isn't in the new licensing model).

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#198

Post by TeMPOraL »

chewz wrote: post #193
thr0waway001 wrote: post #24

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Gotta start doing some thinking.

People who complain that Claude Code Max $200 isn't enough are first to let go in my opinion. They have have either shitty codebase or can't narrow down the scope. Or both. Not the kind of folks you want on your team.

That's a nonsense take. How fast you burn through usage limits depends on your use patterns, and if there's one thing that's true about LLMs, is that you can practically always improve your results by spending more tokens. Pay-per-use API pricing just makes you hit diminishing returns quickly. With Claude Code subscription, it's different.

The whole value proposition of a Max subscription is that it lets you stop worrying about tokens (Claude Code literally tells you so if you type `/cost` while authenticated with a subscription). So I'd turn around and say, people who don't regularly hit usage limits aren't using Claude Code properly - they're not utilizing it in full.

--

Myself, I'm only using Claude Code for little R&D and some side projects, but I upgraded from Max x5 to Max x20 on the second day, as it's trivial to hit the Max x5 limit in a regular, single-instance chat. And that's without any smarts, just a more streamlined flavor of good ol' basic chat experience.

But then I look around, and see people experiment with more complex approaches. They run 4+ instances in parallel to work on more things at a time. They run multiple instances in parallel to get multiple solutions to the same task, and then mix them into a final one - possibly with help of yet another instance. They have the agent extensively research a thing before doing it, and then extensively validate it afterwards. And so on. Any single one of such tricks/strategies is going to make hitting limits on Max x20 a regular occurrence again.

Re: Anthropic tightens usage limits for Claude Code without telling users

#200

Post by nikisweeting »

mrits wrote: post #144
nikisweeting wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have changed hands through shitty drag-and-drop UIs, wordpress ecommerce plugins, and dreamweaver sites, lets not forget the code is there to serve a business purpose at the end of the day. Code quality is an implementation detail that may matter less over time as rewrites get easier. I love me some beatiful hand-written clean code, but clean code is not the true goal.

I don't consider drag-and-drop UIs anywhere close to wordpress plugins. I'm not talking about writing bad code, I'm talking about being able to understand what you are creating.

there are many parts of computers I don't understand in detail, but I still get tremendous value using them and coding on top of abstractions I don't need to know the internals of.
Post reply on HN