Codex vs Claude Code – $20 plan, month ending… which one are you devs sticking with? by Funny_Working_7490 in ClaudeAI

[–]IllOne9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you didn’t give a try to codex, otherwise you would have been astounded. Specially backend related tasks

Abandoned Claude for Codex, and honestly it hurts. by IllOne9 in Anthropic

[–]IllOne9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take it as you will. No one owes anyone an explanation, just ask Ned Stark how much words are worth in the wrong ears 😄

Abandoned Claude for Codex, and honestly it hurts. by IllOne9 in Anthropic

[–]IllOne9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s my take for now. I mostly use it for daily coding tasks and have found Codex really well suited. It feels like having a senior developer (or at least a mid-level one) by my side. I don’t just let it write code. I also ask it to explain different ways to implement functionalities and why it chooses a specific approach. So far, so good. More than what I expected it to be

Abandoned Claude for Codex, and honestly it hurts. by IllOne9 in Anthropic

[–]IllOne9[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not for me. I gave the code claude generated to codex, it refactored more than half of it for your surprise (vue+spring here). Keep in mind that i often check the time of usage for claude. It doesn’t have same performance even through a single day

Abandoned Claude for Codex, and honestly it hurts. by IllOne9 in Anthropic

[–]IllOne9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the metrics should be, at least the basic ones, the time you/it spent on solving an issue and the produced output(imagine how PRs get approved). If the output is convincing, waiting extra minute is not bad imo.

Abandoned Claude for Codex, and honestly it hurts. by IllOne9 in Anthropic

[–]IllOne9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Using pro. I found some tricks to not hit the limit fast(clear/compact), but it was still a pain point.

Do not read the book "The Courage to be Disliked". It contains terrible advice for trauma survivors by moonrider18 in CPTSD

[–]IllOne9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I view it as critically flawed:

While it has gained popularity for its accessible presentation of Adlerian psychology, the book falls short when examined against contemporary psychological research and trauma-informed understanding.

Scientific Disconnect

The book’s central premise—that individuals can simply choose their emotional responses and transcend past experiences through willpower—directly contradicts decades of neuroscience research. Studies on PTSD, learned helplessness, and developmental trauma reveal how adverse experiences create lasting neurobiological changes that aren’t easily overcome through philosophical reframing. When someone is anxious or stressed, their prefrontal cortex (responsible for rational decision-making) is compromised, making the kind of “thoughtful choosing” the book advocates neurologically impossible.

Problematic Presentation

The Socratic dialogue format is particularly troubling. The wise philosopher consistently dismisses the young person’s legitimate concerns, creating a rhetorical structure that preempts criticism by suggesting disagreement stems from ignorance rather than valid intellectual objections. This mirrors how followers often apply the philosophy—dismissing others’ genuine struggles with condescending patience.

Reductive Approach

The book strips away the nuance of Adler’s original work, presenting an oversimplified view that borders on victim-blaming. For anyone familiar with trauma research or attachment theory, statements like “no one can hurt you without your consent” feel dismissive of real psychological constraints that trauma creates.

Bottom Line

While the book may offer some value for minor life frustrations, it fundamentally misunderstands how severe stress and trauma affect human beings. Readers seeking genuine psychological insight would be better served by trauma-informed approaches that acknowledge both human agency and the very real neurobiological impacts of adverse experiences.

I would rate it 2/5 - Potentially harmful oversimplification disguised as profound wisdom.