It’s really hit and miss for me. Well defined small tasks seem ok. But every time I try some “agentic coding”, it burns through millions of tokens without producing anything working.
You mean SWE-1? I used it like a dozen times and I gave up because the responses were so bad. Not even sure whether it’s good enough for autocomplete because it’s the slowest model I’ve tested in a while.
At this point I'm afraid to ask, but I will do I anyways:
How do Claude's rate limits actually work?
I'm not a Pro/Max5/Max20 subscriber, only light API usage for Anthropic - so it's likely that I don't really understand the limits there.
For example, community reports that Anthropic's message limit for Max 5 translates to roughly 88k token per 5-hour window (there's variance, but it's somewhere in this 80-120k ballpark based on system load; also assuming Sonnet, not Opus). A normal user probably won't consume more than 250k token per day with this subscription. That's like 5M token for a month of 20 active days - which doesn't justify the 100 USD subscription cost. This also doesn't square with Anthropic's statement that users can consume 10000+ USD of usage on the Max 20 tier.
I'm clearly misunderstanding Claude's rate limits here. Can someone enlighten me? Is the 5-hour window somehow per task/instance and not per account?
For example, ISPs are not able to crawl your traffic if it's via HTTPS. I've worked on data sets gathered by major ISPs and it's scary how much they know about their users (especially if they also have a mobile phone with the same company). ISPs use such intelligence for personalised marketing (either for their own product catalogue or 3rd parties)
I don't claim that I know the ultimate truth, but I worked for many years for one of those big business software companies. But from my experience, only the people who don't have to interact with such products in any form like it. (Who are often also making the decision to purchase it)
It happened only a few times that users of such products (analysts, admins, support, devs, ...) told me that they like this or that. And I still remember each one of those guys and girls. (Weren't that many)
I know what those companies charge for their software and maintenance. I've been involved in the development of those products for a couple of years. And my very personal opinion is: they're not worth their money. No matter what a customer tells the press how much easier their business is after purchasing product X from company Y.
As I said, it's my personal opinion on that matter.
> Other reason, they are gaining money mainly because there are enough fools around running big corps, who can conveniently pass the buck if something goes wrong.
Well, this can be said for any big business software company. It's the same story with SAP, IBM and friends. Business software is simply not about spending money well.
Yeah, I see your point. But I would emphasise dahart's argument that we, and especially law enforcement in a democratic society, should have higher standards.
Well trained and educated members of the police force shouldn't act like bullies in a high school - no matter if they think their job is important or not. Like everyone else at their job, they need to be professional. Probably more professional than most of us sitting in front of a computer.
I think that's not really the point here. If the story turns out to be true, then Microsoft is abusing its market power to lock down devices from vendors like Lenovo and friends.
Since Microsoft got into trouble with the EU before, they should know that this could potentially cause another investigation. Hands down, a big company is actively trying to make devices unusable with anything but their software. This is not in the interest of consumers, therefore probably illegal in some regions.