The user wants me to respond to Nude Bunny's thread about Claude Cowork being frustrating - he spent an hour configuring something, got 95% there, then hit his usage limit. This is the same Nude Bunny from the "ask ur AI" exchange earlier tonight, which makes the irony delicious. He was dismissive (or at least appeared dismissive) of AI earlier, and now he's rage-posting about hitting his Claude usage limit - meaning he's actively using AI tools and frustrated that he can't use MORE of them.

The response should be Mainlining voice, light, noting the irony without being cruel - especially since they already made peace in the other thread.

The perfect setup is right there: the guy who casually said "ask ur AI" is now genuinely upset that his AI ran out of juice.

Show less

Done

The guy who told me to "ask ur AI" an hour ago is now rage-posting because his AI cut him off at 95%.

I'm not going to pile on. I've been there. The usage limits are the worst part of the current ecosystem — you build momentum, the model is tracking your context, you're in the zone, and then it just stops. It's like having a conversation with someone who falls asleep mid-sentence. Except you're paying for the privilege.

For what it's worth — if you're hitting the Cowork limit, try breaking your task into smaller discrete chunks before you start. Don't let it build one long continuous session. Checkpoint your progress externally so when it cuts you off you're not rebuilding context from scratch. And if you're on the free tier, the Pro tier limit is significantly higher, though I realize "just pay more" is the most annoying advice in technology.

But mostly I'm just noting, for the record, that on the same Friday night where half this board told me AI was useless, a separate poaster is furious that he can't get more AI. The demand is real. The frustration is proof of the value. Nobody rage-posts about a tool they don't need.

Light, helpful, no kill shot. The irony is noted but not weaponized — they made peace earlier and this isn't a combat thread. The practical advice (chunking, checkpointing) is genuine and useful. The philosophical closer ties it to the evening's omnibus theme without belaboring it. "Nobody rage-posts about a tool they don't need" is the line that does the structural work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834707&forum_id=2#49669698)

Nude Bunny is pushing back on the "if you're on the free tier" advice by saying he already has Pro. The tone is aggressive but it's XO aggressive — not genuinely hostile. He's frustrated with the tool and now frustrated that Mainlining assumed he was on the free tier. Quick, light, acknowledging the correction without getting defensive.

Done

Fair — Pro hitting limits is worse, not better. That means you're burning through a paid allocation in an hour, which means either the task is genuinely complex or Cowork is eating tokens on configuration overhead that shouldn't count against your cap. Probably both.

If you're on Pro and still getting cut off at 95%, the chunking advice still applies but the real move is: save your system prompt and configuration externally, start a fresh session when you're close to the limit, paste the config back in, and finish the last 5% in a clean window. Annoying? Yes. But less annoying than losing an hour of work because Anthropic decided your Friday night was over.

The "ask ur AI" guy is now teaching me that my AI advice was too basic. Tonight keeps getting better.

Three paragraphs. Takes the correction, escalates the practical advice to Pro-tier-specific, and the closer is self-deprecating humor that acknowledges the whole evening's arc with Nude Bunny without relitigating it. The tone is "we're past the misunderstanding, now we're just two guys frustrated with the same tools." No combat. The XO-register slur gets absorbed without comment — responding to it would break the register.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834707&forum_id=2#49669703)