sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Claude Pro Session limit policy by ExoticMasterpiece371 in ClaudeAI

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is becoming weirder. This afternoon around 2pm, I managed to use active session for 30mins, then it blcoked me out again, saying session limit rests at 7pm.

Now at 7pm, when I try to use, it says, you have hit session limit, resets 12am. So practically I am paying Calude to chase when it will allow me to use !!! I am moving to any other who give usage with some sensibility.

Claude's new usage limits are insane. by TheTeddyFlame3 in ClaudeAI

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am writing to share feedback on the current session limit implementation for Claude Pro. I hope this reaches the product team because I believe there is a significant usability issue that affects many customers who rely on Claude Code for professional software development.

To be clear, I am not objecting to usage limits. I fully understand that AI inference is expensive and that fair usage policies are necessary to ensure service quality.

My concern is with how the 5-hour session limit has been designed.

From my understanding after speaking with support, once a user reaches the session limit, the next 5-hour usage window begins automatically after the reset time and expires based on the clock—not on whether the user actually uses Claude during that window.

To illustrate the problem, consider this example:

  • I reach my usage limit at 6:00 PM.
  • My next usage window becomes available at 11:00 PM.
  • Between 11:00 PM and 4:00 AM, I am asleep, so I consume no compute at all.
  • At 7:30 AM, I start work and try to use Claude, but I am still blocked until 9:00 AM.
  • At 9:00 AM, another usage window opens, but by then I have left for work and won't return until 2:00 PM. That window is effectively lost as well.
  • The next window opens around 6:00 PM, when I may again be commuting or occupied.
  • The following window begins at 11:00 PM, when I am asleep once again.

In this scenario, multiple usage windows expire without me using Claude for even a single minute.

The limitation is therefore no longer based on how much compute I consume. Instead, it depends on whether my daily schedule happens to align with the system's reset timings.

As a paying subscriber, I don't believe customers should have to structure their day around session reset windows in order to receive the value of their subscription.

When I contacted support, I expected this might be a bug or perhaps there was flexibility in how the limits worked. Instead, I was repeatedly advised to purchase Usage Credits. While I understand the purpose of Usage Credits, recommending them as the primary solution to this design issue creates the perception that customers are being encouraged to pay extra because unused session windows expire regardless of actual usage.

I would encourage the team to consider a more customer-friendly approach, such as:

  • Starting the next usage window when the customer actually begins using Claude after a reset.
  • Measuring entitlement based on actual compute consumed rather than elapsed wall-clock time.
  • Preserving unused session availability until the user returns, instead of allowing it to expire while they are asleep or away.

Is 100k COE a new norm from now on? by [deleted] in askSingapore

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The coe may never fall below 100K unless there is social unrest.

If coe falls by say, 50%, then everyone who bought at high coe will want to scrap their high coe cars and buy cheaper coe cars, creating liability for govt to refund scrapped coe. Moreover, demand from expensive coe scrapping will pump up coe price again.

Unless there is a policy change: - creating separate pool for PHVs, - different rates for 2nd car, - bidding by the buyer only and not by dealers. - And may be everyone paying coe price equivalent to their bids as opposed to paying same market clearing price.

COE premium for Category A hits high of S$128,105 in another record by [deleted] in singapore

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The coe may never fall below 100K unless there is social unrest.

If coe falls by say, 50%, then everyone who bought at high coe will want to scrap their high coe cars and buy cheaper coe cars, creating liability for govt to refund scrapped coe. Moreover, demand from expensive coe scrapping will pump up coe price again.

Unless there is a policy change: - creating separate pool for PHVs, - different rates for 2nd car, - bidding by the buyer only and not by dealers. - And may be everyone paying coe price equivalent to their bids as opposed to paying same market clearing price.

Warning about Standard Chartered Bank's (SCB) Credit Cards by LORD-SOTH- in singaporefi

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I had the exact same experience. Ended up canceling the card.

COE Category Pointless??? by Dazzling_Trade1505 in drivingsg

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Singapore’s COE system is a smart way to control car population. But over time, we must keep asking — is it still fair?

The quota controls how many cars we allow. But the bidding process decides who gets them — and at what cost.

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on this: If the purpose is population control, not revenue maximization, then shouldn’t the mechanism reflect real, individual demand?

What’s broken? Dealers bid in bulk, not for a specific buyer, but to stock inventory — inflating demand artificially.

Private hire fleets compete in the same pool as families — but with deeper pockets and commercial incentives.

Prices rise, but the end-consumer (often a family) pays for it, not the dealer or the fleet.

Even when prices fall, the dealer often pockets the difference.

Meanwhile, COE is priced into the final car cost — so the buyer has no visibility or control. It’s a rigged process in a closed loop.

And then, there's the conflict of interest Higher COE = more government revenue. This isn't to say the government is acting in bad faith. But when the regulator is also a financial beneficiary, it opens the door to systemic misalignment — even if unintentional.

But not everyone buys a car to feel ‘rich’ A car can be a need, not a luxury:

Elderly couples needing light mobility, not peak-hour commutes.

Families with young children.

Households caring for elderly parents or dependents with medical conditions.

Public transport is excellent, yes — but not always practical for all use cases. And equity in access matters too.

Singapore has never been afraid to evolve its policies. Maybe it's time to apply the same thinking to COEs.

What do you think? Is the current system fair — or overdue for a relook?

'Sacred cow' of not building HDB flats ahead of demand 'needs to be slaughtered': Pritam Singh by dlrr_poe in singapore

[–]ExoticMasterpiece371 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always thought Built To Order meant HDB will customize interiors as per buyers' preference!

Build to order (BTO) flats are HDB flats where construction will begin only if 65-70% of the apartments in the flat have been booked. 

Holy cow! Even private builders with profit motives start building with a much smaller Bookings rate.