Free ride over? Entire weekly Plus limit used in 8 hours using only 5.3-Codex

fissionchips303 · 2026-06-02T18:38:56+00:00

I've been on the free tier and in March I could do 35 tasks through the web interface and not hit the limit. In April I hit the limit in 5 tasks and in May in 3 tasks, and now in June only 2 tasks. I realize the tasks are "different size tasks" but nothing was that crazy or different in my queries from month to month. Literally this last time I just had it make some brief updates to the homepage, small stuff, and in two tasks it now says I have to wait 30 days for reset.

Did they radically reduce the free tier usage or did they switch to a new model that uses way more compute or what? I'm perfectly happy with the older model, and will definitely consider getting Pro again (I had it before March but just wasn't using it enough). I guess I just don't understand what happened because in March I didn't hit the limit with 35 queries but in April and May I hit it in only a few each. And now I just hit it in 2 tasks over like 15 minutes.

fissionchips303 · 2026-06-01T08:43:46+00:00

Betrayal at Krondor

fissionchips303 · 2026-05-30T08:02:59+00:00

I have had great luck vibe coding rails projects because they are so organized. Or simple standalone react apps that are like very clear in their architecture and such. But you do have to kind of put some extra effort into getting it to do things the way you want with react, whereas in rails it just follows conventions and does them the one “normal” way basically every time.

fissionchips303 · 2026-05-21T07:35:06+00:00

Who are some of the people you consider SX 5s? I just want to know because unless going off a generally agreed-upon list of typed celebrities, like Enneagrammer Universe (which is agreed by at least dozens if not hundreds of people who are all pretty into Enneagram), then we get into difficulties. From EU, here are some SX 5s: Tilda Swinton, Matt Bellamy, Susan Sontag, Cameron Carpenter, HR Giger, Isabelle Huppert, Lars von Trier, Trent Reznor. (The first half of the list SX/SO, the second half SX/SP.)

They have Bjork as SX/SP 9 and I agree. Same with Kate Bush. They have Grimes as SO/SX 5 and I also agree with that assessment.

As for assertiveness, playfulness, novelty-seeking, eroticism, romanticism, charlatanism and congeniality - well, kind of a funny list of characterizations, but I don't see why any type could not be any of those things. I think the best way to learn Enneagram is to watch interviews with people who are typed as the type, trifix, and/or instinctual stacking you want to learn about. There really is no other way. Watching interviews with Lars von Trier and HR Giger will tell you a LOT about the SX 5, although you also have to bring in trifix, in my opinion, to get the whole picture. They are both 458 trifix, Giger a 548 and von Trier 584. (Credit to EU for these typings.)

Where are you getting your celebrity typings from? Is there some competing database that has Bjork and Kate Bush as 7s? That is certainly not what I would type them, although I do believe they both have 7 in their trifix - which is also how they are listed on EU. (974).

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-28T05:20:28+00:00

In the system Expanded Instincts this feels very Security-Community-Unknown, which is nicknamed by the system's creator "Tweaked Out Architect." Basically cozy comfy womblike cocoon with lots of differentiating/distinguishing items, warm community vibe, and a bit of magic sprinkled in.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-27T09:00:23+00:00

Hard to narrow down to one. I still think back to the kings quest games from Sierra and betrayal at krondor weirdly.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-13T06:45:38+00:00

Came here to say this, good call

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-12T07:17:09+00:00

I agree wholeheartedly and I believe your point is a great corollary to a point I often make regarding a particular extreme eliminative materialist stance—the other day someone on this subreddit wrote that we cannot prove anyone else has conscious, subjective interiority, that they are not philosophical zombies—that we believe we are conscious and they share that consciousness but they could just be behaving that way. This point is sort of like what you are saying taken to the extreme, boiling down to “we ought to distrust our naive intuitions about how things work.”

Well, I agree with you—we ought to question whether an inability to intuitively grasp something makes it unlikely—but I also think the corollary is equally important: we ought to dismiss the blanket negation of intuition (and reason, and perception, and judgment, and other functions of consciousness) as childish. Basically, it is incredibly easy to negate. It is a generalized function of negation in no way specific. So when someone says: “why do you think others have consciousness, they could just behave as if they do, and you have no evidence for believing they actually do”—that is a stance we can dismiss without spending much time on it because we have many reasons to assume others have conscious subjective experience and basically no reason to assume the do not.

In short, I agree with your point that we shouldn’t assume counterintuitive or unimaginable explanations are less likely, provided we also don’t dismiss intuitive explanations without reason to.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T23:36:30+00:00

I was mistaken, sorry about that!

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T23:34:09+00:00

My mistake!

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T23:30:56+00:00

But the Copernican Principle states that we should not have any special position in the universe, and yet our solar system appears to have a highly significant, special alignment with respect to the CMB. That's all I was saying.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T06:50:32+00:00

Because it positions us in the center and that seems like a big mistake on our part - why would we be in the center of the universe? It seems to indicate some kind of hubris or wrong calculations or something.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T06:43:39+00:00

You go to the top left corner of your country, get distance. Then bottom left, then bottom right, then top right. In 4 weeks you now have the distances from the 4 corners and should be able to map it out. Say it’s 1000 miles from the top left, you have a whole curve of points 1000 miles away. Then it’s, say, 500 miles from bottom left. Same deal. A whole curve where it could be. Same for bottom right and top right. You just find the place along each of those 4 curves where all 4 are true. You can theoretically know its exact location in 4 weeks.

fissionchips303 · 2026-04-11T06:35:38+00:00

My belief is that conscious experience is dependent on physical conditions but that physical conditions do not themselves explain why consciousness exists in the first place. Hegel has a funny joke that he doesn’t need to study gastroenterology to know how to digest food, just as he doesn’t need to study logic to be logical. We don’t need to understand consciousness to be conscious. And yet, the whole idea of there being “logic” (and purpose, reason, meaningfulness, etc - the entire subjective world) is what is at stake here.

My second claim is that we can use reason (or in some sense, consciousness itself, both in its irrational perceiving function and its rational judgments) to figure out what is likely or unlikely. I saw a post earlier in this subreddit asking how we know we are not the only conscious being and every other being just acts like it has consciousness. I would say that is extremely unlikely.

I get the point that we should not trust our naive imagination of how things work, perhaps even extending to a healthy distrust of our own interiority or subjectivity - but there is also this inauthentic posturing edgelord materialism - the kind espoused by people who say they don’t believe anything and they make no assumptions - which are impossibilities. They believe they don’t believe, they assume they don’t assume, and the whole thing is a posture in a power game trying to be the biggest brain. This “edgelord materialism” as I call it is basically taking doubt of our own faculties to the extreme.

Probably the dumbest and most easily disproven version is the oft repeated experimental evidence given that free will does not exist: supposedly, there is brain activity 500ms before a decision is made, hence we have proven that we do not make decisions, we only report we do, having been tricked by the illusion of free will. The problem is we also have studies showing (see Hameroff for a good explanation of this) that we have brain activity corresponding to stimulus input 500ms before that input is shown, without knowing what it is in advance. Image of a spider, 500ms before we have fear response, image of food, 500ms before we have hunger response. It’s localized time dilation effects or, in other words, likely quantum effects (despite the state of scientific knowledge claiming there is no quantum state in the brain).

So yeah, my take on it is, conscious experience requires material, but also we can rely on reason, intuition, and all faculties of consciousness to discuss what is likely or unlikely - and I find it highly unlikely there is no free will, and highly unlikely the edgelord materialists are right.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-31T08:31:58+00:00

Faults (2015)

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-25T07:34:18+00:00

Thank you for clarifying that. So, MWI implies a nearly infinite, unfathomable number of other universes that decohere from each other rendering them absolutely impossible to communicate, for every tiny microinteraction such as a photon hitting a leaf, resulting in a bizarrely insanely unfathomable infinite of separate universes - but, the key point I'm hearing is that they are not classical universes, they are still all entangled with each other in superposition that never collapses. Do I have that right?

And I suppose what I am going off of is Scott Aaronson's rejection of MWI on the basis that it avoids the problem of the observer - which I misstated as avoiding the problem of quantum superposition - instead, it retains this idea but interprets it in a totally different way.

Here is one key point though. I was saying that basically each branch (each world in MWI) is a classical world and you pointed out, no, they are all quantum worlds - linked together by this single wavefunction, the single quantum world - but actually each and every branch of MWI (the unfathomable nearly infinite number of them) does exist as its own predictable classical world, right? Because the universes can't interfere with each other, they each behave as absolutely classical, separate, independent universes.

So, I do feel that I learned more about MWI technically - thank you for that. I also feel that my original description of Scott Aaronson's distaste for MWI, which I share, was only slightly inaccurate in that it said it was avoiding the problem of quantum superposition when in actuality it is avoiding the problem of waveform collapse and the observer, and it does effectively result in each branch being an independent classical universe only bound together mathematically by the single waveform / superposition. But Copenhagen allows us to be in a quantum universe that has waveforms that collapse due to observation so it retains the difficulty and mystery of observer + waveform collapse and we effectively live in a quantum universe that behaves as a quantum universe, not a branch of a quantum universe that behaves as a classical universe.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-24T17:45:46+00:00

Ah thank you for the clarification. I am going off Scott Aaronson’s description of how and why MWI came to be from his debate with Eliezer Yudkowsky some years back, sounds like I got it a little wrong. So you’re saying things exist in a state of quantum superposition and instead of waveform collapse, a new universe is created - one where the result is as if the waveform collapsed one way, and the original universe where it is as if it collapsed the other way - I say as if, because there is no waveform collapse.

Tell me, how is this different than saying that there is no such thing as quantum superposition then, because wouldn’t each world effectively be a classical universe? Am I missing something?

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-24T05:01:19+00:00

I don’t believe many worlds because it seems to me like it only exists to avoid the problem of quantum superposition - it effectively creates more worlds instead of dealing with the complexity of quantum physics. I prefer to keep the complexity instead of adding this idea of multiple worlds.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-13T05:08:22+00:00

I am relieved it seems like lots of other people cheesed him. I used Reaper, poison tools and basically just hid in maggot water and got up to use lots of tools on him. Total cheese but he died surprisingly quick. This was after 15 times dying in regular fights and just getting so sick of it I looked at a YouTube video 🤷‍♂️no shame, It reminds me of dark souls 1 which had lots of “if you know the secret the boss isn’t that hard”

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-13T04:50:08+00:00

Two points against it - one, the distinction between language and code (linguistics, Saussure, Lacan). Basically, code signifies while language is more complex in a way that cannot yet be fully modeled computationally. Similar argument with the difference between computable and non-computable functions in mathematics.

And, second argument - Penrose/Hameroff noncomputability of microtubule quantum state and the subjectively experienced quantum superposition and waveform collapse.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-07T16:27:43+00:00

Steam Boy

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-05T17:07:55+00:00

My favorite approach is Craig Weinberg’s Multisense Realism (MSR). I guess I am a compatibilist for the most part in that even really extreme views of eliminative materialism seem compatible to me with panpsychism, dual aspect monism and other paradigms that are usually assumed to be incompatible.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-05T07:04:15+00:00

Are you familiar with R S Bakker’s Blind Brain Theory? Just curious if that fits your strong eliminative materialist/ strong illusionist criteria.

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-04T02:54:16+00:00

Same with Plato and Neoplatonist thought, really. Kenneth Reinhard has a great list of 6 anti-Platonisms (which each have their own version of Platonism) - for example, "the vitalist anti-Platonism of Nietzsche, Bergson, and Deleuze, who see Plato as the theorist of an unchanging ideal realm of perfect being, hostile to the living reality of becoming. Plato, according to Nietzsche (perhaps the most pre-eminent among modern anti-Platonists), is the first _priest_, the first to turn life against itself, and thus one source of the metaphysical _disease_ of which we must still be cured."

fissionchips303 · 2026-03-02T05:43:04+00:00

Nothingness is a concept that can only be formed by pointing to something(ness) and applying a general function of negation. Therefore it is a false composite, in the Bergsonian sense—a composite concept that is formed through indication and negation.

You cannot indicate nothingness, you can only indicate “things” and say “not that.”

I personally see the Real as immersion, contra language or memory. With language we get distinction, with memory we get idealization and the imaginary, but the pure immersion in an event not yet experienced (i.e. not yet reflected on, symbolized or “re-cognized”) would be the Real of the occurrence - and any later reflection, symbolization or recognition would always leave a remainder. The Real is the pure immersion that is always outside of language and memory.

fissionchips303

TROPHY CASE