The quota problem is partly a context problem. Claude Code with 1M context re-reads your entire project structure every turn. If your agent already knows "this file handles auth, that module does payments" from previous sessions, it doesn't need to rediscover it.
I've been running an autonomous agent 24/7 for 60 days. The unlock wasn't a bigger context window — it was external memory. Agent stores facts as it learns, retrieves only what's relevant before each action, and scores whether the retrieved context actually helped. Facts that work get promoted; wrong ones decay.
Practically this means my agent's effective context per turn dropped from ~500K tokens to ~50K because it's not re-reading the entire codebase — just pulling the 20-30 facts it needs for the current task.
Side note: I don’t know what Anthropic changed but now Claude Code consumes the quota incredibly fast. I have the Max5 plan, and it just consumed about 10% of the session quota in 10 minutes on a single prompt. For $100/month, I have higher expectations.
I had to double check that they'd removed the non-1M option, and... WTF? This is what's in `config` → `model`
1. Default (recommended) Opus 4.6 with 1M context · Most capable for complex work
2. Sonnet Sonnet 4.6 · Best for everyday tasks
3. Sonnet (1M context) Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $3/$15 per Mtok
4. Haiku Haiku 4.5 · Fastest for quick answers
So there's an option to use non-1M Sonnet, but not non-1M Opus?
Except wait, I guess that actually makes sense, because it says Sonnet 1M is billed as extra usage... but also WTF, why is Sonnet 1M billed as extra usage? So Opus 1M is included in Max, but if you want the worse model with that much context, you have to pay extra? Why the heck would anyone do that?
The screen does also say "For other/previous model names, specify with --model", so maybe you can use that to get 200K Opus, but I'm very confused why Anthropic wouldn't include that in the list of options. What a strange UX decision.
Anthropic is not building good will as a consumer brand. They've got the best product right now but there's a spring charging behind me ready to launch me into OpenCode as soon as the time is right.
I'd like to use Opus with OpenCode right now to combine the best TUI agent app with the best LLM. But my understanding is Anthropic will nuke me from orbit if I try that.
I've been jumping from Claude -> Gemini -> GPT Codex. Both Claude and Gemini really reduced quotas and so I cancelled. Only subbed GPT for the special 2x quota in March and now my allocation is done as well.
I decided to give opencode go a try today. It's $5 for the first month. Didn't get much success with Kimi K2, overly chatty, built too complex solutions - burned 40% of my allocation and nothing worked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
But Minimax m2.7. Wow, it feels just like Claude Opus 4.6. Really has serious chops in Rust.
Tomorrow/Wednesday will try a month of their $40 plan and see how it goes.
Strongly agree with the sentiment, but I'd say if you're familiar with the terminal you may as well just install it and truly 'learn by doing'!
I could see this being great for true beginners, but for them it might be nice to have even some more basics to start (how do I open the terminal, what is a command, etc).
Why wpuld anyone want to "learn" how to use some non-deterministic black box of bullshit that is frequently wrong? When you get different output fkr the same input, how do you learn?
How is that beneficial? Why would you waste your time learning something that is frequently changing at the whims of some greedy third party? No thanks.
Are people again learning a new set of tools? Just tell the AI what you want, if the AI tool doesn't allow that then tell another Ai tool to make you a translation layer that will convert the natural language to the commands etc. What's the point of learning yet another tool?
The idea that AI can write code like a seasoned software developer but not being able to use its own tooling that can be learned through 11 chapters tutorial doesn't make any sense.
"Part of the initial excitement in programming is easy to explain: just the fact that when you tell the computer to do something, it will do it. Unerringly. Forever. Without a complaint.
And that’s interesting in itself.
But blind obedience on its own, while initially fascinating, obviously does not make for a very likeable companion. What makes programming so engaging is that, while you can make the computer do what you want, you have to figure out how."[0]
I think somewhere between 2016 and 2026 the market realized that programmers _love_ writing tools for themselves and others, and it went full bore into catering to the Bike Shedding economy, and now AI is accelerating this to an absurd degree.
Me too, I love writing tools for myself and end up yak shaving all the time but why there's a tutorial for a machine that understand human language? Just type down your inner monologue and it will do it.
I've been running an autonomous agent 24/7 for 60 days. The unlock wasn't a bigger context window — it was external memory. Agent stores facts as it learns, retrieves only what's relevant before each action, and scores whether the retrieved context actually helped. Facts that work get promoted; wrong ones decay.
Practically this means my agent's effective context per turn dropped from ~500K tokens to ~50K because it's not re-reading the entire codebase — just pulling the 20-30 facts it needs for the current task.
Built it as an MCP server so any Claude Code session can use it: https://engram.cipherbuilds.ai
Except wait, I guess that actually makes sense, because it says Sonnet 1M is billed as extra usage... but also WTF, why is Sonnet 1M billed as extra usage? So Opus 1M is included in Max, but if you want the worse model with that much context, you have to pay extra? Why the heck would anyone do that?
The screen does also say "For other/previous model names, specify with --model", so maybe you can use that to get 200K Opus, but I'm very confused why Anthropic wouldn't include that in the list of options. What a strange UX decision.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1s7mkn3/psa_claud...
I decided to give opencode go a try today. It's $5 for the first month. Didn't get much success with Kimi K2, overly chatty, built too complex solutions - burned 40% of my allocation and nothing worked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
But Minimax m2.7. Wow, it feels just like Claude Opus 4.6. Really has serious chops in Rust.
Tomorrow/Wednesday will try a month of their $40 plan and see how it goes.
I could see this being great for true beginners, but for them it might be nice to have even some more basics to start (how do I open the terminal, what is a command, etc).
According to the quiz, I am a beginner!
I got it as well.
The linked site is a pretty good interactive Claude tutorial for beginners.
And that’s interesting in itself.
But blind obedience on its own, while initially fascinating, obviously does not make for a very likeable companion. What makes programming so engaging is that, while you can make the computer do what you want, you have to figure out how."[0]
- [0] https://www.brynmawr.edu/inside/academic-information/departm...
I wouldn't have the thought to say to the machine to compact its context if I didn't know it has context and it can be compacted, right?