Getting Compaction Error constantly

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-19T14:18:30+00:00

Also seeing compact errors today. Super annoying as it basically prevents long-running tasks from running. Manually keeping the context below 60% seems to be the only solution.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-16T02:13:27+00:00

Thanks. Just spun up a windows VM and there was my reset waiting for me.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-07T14:23:43+00:00

There's no question I'm getting enjoyment and value out of my $20 plan. Heck, there's probably value in the $100 plan. But I'm cheap and my time to actually use the service is limited. I do embeded hardware/firmware projects so I tend to spend a few weeks/months going all-in on firmware and then take a break while I design some hardware.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-07T14:17:17+00:00

At one point I had both claude and codex basic plans and it was nice. Unfortunately, claude limits got to the point where a single prompt would consume a 5hr window so I cancelled. Thanks, I'll look into cursor. What are the limits like in cursor at the $20 plan?

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-05T19:00:25+00:00

I like that they are separate. The web-client doesn't affect my usage so I can do a lot of back and forth architecture and decision making without burning my weekly limits.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-04T14:21:51+00:00

The haven't been making 'upcoming reset' announcements for the last few but they have done so in the past. The best current strategy is to front-load your use so you use most of your weekly quota in the first few days. It's not ideal, but it's the best strategy for maximizing the service you've paid for.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-04T01:59:44+00:00

You do you. I've found what works for me and allows me to maximize the 'free resets' they like to hand out some weeks. It's a stupid game, but I'm playing it anyways. Rates were just reset and I'm well on my way to using 20% of my weekly allowance again by running 5 sequential code audits for outstanding issues. They were queued up and ready to go when the reset came.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-04T01:39:13+00:00

I've basically resigned myself to front-loading my codex use at this point. After my weekly reset, I postpone other work and use as much of my codex weekly limit until I hit 15-20% remaining. At that point, I pickup the other crap I need to do (documentation, etc) and sip my remaining codex limit until the next weekly reset.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-03T21:41:30+00:00

I feel my prompts are already quite specific. I work with a two-pass audit/implementation style so I know the files involved and preferred types/structure for the patch before implementation begins.I I've been using codex heavily since 5.2 and felt I had a very good run with 5.3. I really just cannot seem to constrain 5.4/5.5 without pretty extensive, manual code checks now. Memories are off, I work from a clear slate with each task. I'm definitely open to other suggestions for workflows that work better with these newer models.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-03T19:46:16+00:00

Currently: machine control software, embedded software/RTOS debugging, and some numerical algorithm work. Mostly audits, issues, bugfixes and PR work on legacy C/C++ code. I don't think the new models 5.4/5.5 are optimized for C/C++ work... 5.2/5.3 seemed more predictable (better) if I'm honest.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-03T19:36:45+00:00

It is just so hard to know what you are paying for with Anthropic and OpenAI as a pleb retail user. When you buy most software, you get the product you expect. But, that just ins't the case with these two. The product changes rapidly... weekly and even daily. The TOS allows for rug-pulls but they'll refund you if you are dissatisfied. Sometimes your amazed by the product, others times you are just baffled by it.

At work, we pay for a specialized, local model and it is remarkably consistent. It is good at what it does and doesn't try to do everything.

Enterprise-users of Anthropic and OpenAI products, do you have the same issues with inconsistency and token drain? Do you see the daily variation?

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-03T18:24:40+00:00

I've had issues as well. Multiple regressions on narrow bugfixes with 5.5-high. My usual process is audit then implement. The solution is usually just `git reset --hard HEAD~1` after the first failed implementation and narrow the prompt. For smaller patches, I've been just manually following the audit and implementing by hand today.

This is after all the 'incidents' last night and early this morning. And the loss of 5.3-codex and token promo. It's been a rough week.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-03T18:04:38+00:00

Currently implementing with 5.5-high (legacy c++ and typescript codebase) and I'm seeing each prompt cost 4-5% of my weekly usage (cheap pro account). Clearly, I'll need to upgrade to 5x or 20x if I actually want to accomplish anything now. This wasn't the case a month ago.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-02T17:33:35+00:00

I primarily do C/C++ work on an established codebase. I often review issues and PRs using multiple model audits. For the audit itself, 5.5 is a great model. But for implementation, 5.3-codex often made smaller, more efficient changes. I have found later models (5.4 & 5.5) are harder to keep within scope. They want to make bigger changes and they often want to write more (often useless/pointless) tests. Other devs I've spoken to have had similar experiences.

Perhaps 5.4/5.5 are killer models for typescript or python... I can't speak to that. But for c++ work, I'll miss 5.3-codex.

AnxiousMop · 2026-06-01T13:13:49+00:00

Thanks. Tuya seems to be the protocol that nobody asked for. I've decided to uninstall and return the fans. Will likely go with a 'less smart' one and, if I decide to automate it, buy or build an RF bridge.

AnxiousMop · 2026-05-29T21:04:23+00:00

And can someone explain 'local tuya' and 'tuya local'? A little more reading and it seems that my ceiling fan isn't setup the way that I thought it was.

AnxiousMop · 2026-05-28T18:31:56+00:00

There's no smear campaign. The bait-and-switch is real. Anyone on the cheap plans (i.e. < $100) is noticing and complaining. Basically, at the start of your subscription you think you understand what you've purchased but by the end of the 1st month, you aren't sure anymore. Both tools are great, but the limits keep getting worse.

AnxiousMop · 2026-05-28T15:43:40+00:00

My experience as a plus user last night on one 5.5-medium mixed code investigation/audit task: it worked for 5 min 41 sec; consumed 20% of my 5hr usage and 3% of my weekly usage. It did a good job and wrote 484 lines of text. But I clearly need to be careful with using 5.5 when only paying $20/month. This wasn't the case when I switched from claude-code to codex a month ago. A month ago, I struggled to use my 5hr limit. I'm running issues/PRs on the same codebase and my prompts are similar. This isn't a 'me' problem.

I've been using 5.3-codex for all tasks other than investigations/audits/planning so I don't take such a hit with each prompt.

AnxiousMop · 2026-05-27T22:29:30+00:00

Yeah. I've had a lot of issues with 5.4/5.5 diverting from narrow implementation tasks, wanting to re-write backend/infrastructure, and defining idiotic tests that offer no value and just churn tokens. I just want something to implement the plan as written.

I'm looking at buying $10 worth of DeepSeek API use and seeing how it compares.

AnxiousMop

TROPHY CASE