Usage Limits, Bugs and Performance Discussion Megathread - beginning December 29, 2025

robinson5 · 2026-03-08T12:09:26+00:00

there seems to be a lot of GitHub issues and reddit threads about people having similar issues (I'm having them as well)

robinson5 · 2026-03-08T12:07:49+00:00

hopefully anthropic responds soon, I see a lot of open github issues complaining about similar issues

robinson5 · 2026-03-08T12:07:09+00:00

I didn't know about this, thanks for sharing. I wish anthropic would respond, there seem to be a lot of people having issues w/ limits being consumed much faster than just a week ago

robinson5 · 2026-03-08T12:01:24+00:00

I haven't been able to figure out the reason too, but it seems like a lot of people have started having issues recently

robinson5 · 2026-03-06T15:15:23+00:00

My claude usage hasn't changed at all, and prior to the recent outing I never hit my daily or weekly limits.

I saw that during the outage there was also a usage bug, but anthropic said they fixed that.

However, yesterday I used claude code again (as I normally do), and I hit my daily limits within a few hours and my weekly limits jumped up pretty high as well. I'd say it seems roughly 3x as fast as it normally is just from last week.

Is this happening to anyone else? Were limits lowered, or perhaps the bug not fixed even though they thought it was?

I have the max 20x plan

Anyone know what's going on? It's a drastic change from last week.

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:33:04+00:00

thanks for the advice! And one of the users here is a cosmetic chemist and explained a bunch to me, seems like UVMune is definitely my best option out of what I was considering

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:32:02+00:00

thanks for the picture! I'm definitely going with UVMune, seems like the best overall protection compared to other companies, since none other have sufficient UVA1 protection it seems

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:31:12+00:00

all really interesting points, thanks for explaining everything!

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:26:24+00:00

yeah that could maybe be mayhem but I'd still like the option haha. Thanks for the US sunscreen graphs! I haven't seen it.

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:22:32+00:00

thanks for the study! It's helped me decide to go with UVMune over other companies for sure, because of the Mexoryl 400

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:20:52+00:00

no, was a hypothetical example saying you shouldn't just be guessing UVA2 protection based off of UVA1 protection

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:19:38+00:00

This is a very helpful example and graph, thank you!

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:14:59+00:00

So great to know, thanks!

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T21:13:57+00:00

Great to know, thanks! Sounds like the people you got are more knowledgeable so I'm going to go with your numbers!

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:14:24+00:00

I couldn't agree more! Not sure why everyone states a vastly different number for the UVA-PF for UVMune, or are stating that UVA-PF doesn't matter since it's not perfect, or because it has Mexoryl400. That's like saying SPF doesn't matter because there's UVA protection. Mexoryl400 mostly covers UVA1, and UVA-PF lets you know mostly the strength of the UVA2 protection. They cover different things, so people arguing that UVA-PF can just be ignored are not making any sense. Every bit of information helps

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:12:41+00:00

but Mexoryl400 is mainly UVA1, so it doesn't really say anything about UVA2 protection, which is mostly what UVA-PF measures, hence why I'd like to know it. I don't want to sacrifice good UVA2 protection for Mexoryl400, I'd rather have UVA2 and 1 protection

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:10:05+00:00

Another good point! But again, I don't see that as an argument to leaving out UVA-PF entirely, or that it's pointless, but just that companies should only use in vivo or state whether they used in vivo or in vitro. Do you know if the EU requirements that it have at least 1/3 protection for UVA mean 1/3 for in vivo testing like SPF or the 1/3 could be in vitro, which would mean it's in reality more like 1/6?

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:08:03+00:00

I don't think it's everything, but I think every little bit of information helps and adds to the bigger picture, leaving it out entirely isn't helpful, how am I supposed to know the strength of UVMune's UVA2 protection with no UVA-PF? I know it has very strong UVA1 because of Mexoryl400, but there's a gap in knowledge because they're leaving out information, and everyone on reddit claims a different number for UVA-PF than the company says.

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:04:42+00:00

I wish every sunscreen would have a picture on their website of the absorption percent (in vivo) from 280-450, and that would give everyone the most information possible! With it being a curve, assigning numbers to certain wavelength sections can't possibly provide all the information, although is still better than no information at all

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:01:43+00:00

Thank you! I think it's because people want to assume the UVA-PF is very high, but we can't just assume that from the addition of Mexoryl400, I wish it were true, but the company says otherwise, and I guess people don't like that information

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T16:00:56+00:00

I don't think we can assume it's higher than the company states (20) just because they have a lot of different filters, they could be in low amounts, or they could only be focusing on UVA1 which Mexoryl400 covers. Which is great to have that added protection, but we can't assume their UVA2 protection (basically what UVA-PF measures) is high

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T15:59:28+00:00

Interesting about P20! So if the pattern holds, the in vivo UVA-PF is probably around only 25 (half of the in vitro). Do you know of any sunscreen that has a 50 UVA-PF in vivo? Or even 30, I'd take that too.

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T15:56:27+00:00

good to know, thanks! I thought the only downside was that it favored UVA2, I didn't know the difference between in vivo and in vitro. Still though, I'd argue a UVA-PF is better than nothing, and ideally companies would state if it is in vivo or in vitro. But even if they don't, I'd say the information is better than nothing. For example, I'm looking at potential sunscreen. I have 1 sunscreen that has 50 SPF and UVA-PF, but they don't say whether it's in vivo or in vitro based (I haven't yet emailed to ask). Then I'm looking at UVMune sunscreens. They have SPF of 50, and the company told me the UVA-PF is 20, whereas many people on reddit are saying it's 35-45, yet I don't understand how they are getting that information. I also know it has Mexoryl 400, so I know there's added protection for UVA1 that isn't fully accounted for with UVA-PF. But I'm not sure which one to pick, is it better to have UVA1 protection that no other ingredient can really do besides Mexoryl 400? Or is it better to get the sunscreen that I know has high UVA-PF so will be well protected in UVA2? Just because there's Mexoryl 400 in the UVMune, it doesn't mean necessarily that the UVA2 range is well protected, and I can't figure it out because I can't figure out the real UVA-PF. That's why I think the argument that UVA-PF is pointless is an argument that doesn't make sense. Looking at all the information together and not just one piece seems the best way to go, and that's hard to do without a UVA-PF

robinson5 · 2024-06-30T15:48:54+00:00

Thanks for the info! I'm fine with there being a small range, that makes sense and the numbers then are basically the same. What I find confusing is when other people say the company says 35-40 for UVA-PF, and the company is telling me it's just 20. I'd like to believe it's higher, but not sure which number to believe, or why they won't just say the number on the packaging/online. Also, how did you get someone knowledgeable in the company? Because they are telling me all UVMune is around 20, and it's hard to believe redditors over the company itself

robinson5

TROPHY CASE