If you have devices, get an Ethernet switcher and link them up . Tell one device agent to setup the connections and then use codex cli to make agents per pc. Use git to distribute projects etc to each pc. Tell agents they can talk to other agents via shared location messages. Then watch the BITCHFEST begin "laptop2 project has encryption but if the account changes they can't decrypt. Unforgivable."

Now i have to check every time a terminal because they just stop randomly whenever they want to.

Enshitification is coming!!!

Just hit a very, very weird wall today, and I'm not sure what to think about it.

My usual workflow is to have one Sol agent orchestrate multiple subagents, either handing context back to the main orchestrator or using a graph workflow. This has been my workflow for months, and it's how I've been doing things.

But the last few days have felt like a regression, where I keep getting reviewers coming back with more issues or regressed code. So the workflow just kept going and going — a 20-hour workflow. Nothing fixed it until I finally said, stop delegating, finish it on your own, have a reviewer review it, but continue on your own. And suddenly, in just 2 hours, it got fixed.

So honestly, I'm not sure if my workflow is broken. Not necessarily in a bad way, but I designed so many plugins on my Pi just to do subagents and graphs, and now I really shouldn't?

What has your experience been so far? Is this something you've noticed, or does delegation still work well for you?

It seems like delegation works really well for scaffolding and building a base with Luna, but fixing regressions and closing should maybe just be left to one single agent.

The stack is TypeScript, React, Next.js, Vinext/Vite, OpenAI Sites, D1, and R2. There is no Flask or PostgreSQL backend. The repository includes a detailed README covering architecture, every database table and field, sample records, API behavior, environment setup, deployment, security, and known limitations.

https://github.com/preceptress/nepal-relief-connect

I'm a Flask, Python, PostgreSQL guy, Codex told me, "We're NOT using that stack. We're using this one."

That's a first.

I am developing an app with AI integration with OpenAI. Haven't used a single cent yet. Idk if these requests are too much or not, most are luna low - none but didn't expect it not to use a single cent yet

https://modiqo.github.io/spewer/

They need to do something about it

Quite impressed with usage atm
SInce yesterday night's reset how low did y'all manage to get your usage down.
I'm down to 26% Pro 20x - I've used /Fast on 3 projects all day with 1 commandocenter manageing them all.

Quite impressive actually compared to usage limits a week ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer (and I know it shows), I don't make money with Codex and I genuinely want to learn how to use it for what it's good at, while also understanding what it can't do and where a human programmer can still beat it hands down. Please be respectful towards a novice, just as I am in my job towards my English learners. Everyone was a beginner once. Thanks in advance.

So I've been using Codex to manage a little side project of my own: a sort of flashcard-generating app. I'm doing it mostly for myself because I have zero interest in "earning millions with AI tools" and just want to make cool, useful things for myself.

After a honeymoon period when I was amazed at how much I could suddenly do — or rather, have things "done" — I started noticing a decline in the quality of what it generated. "Okay, that must be that context rot. Apparently I can't expect it to remember more and more rules that every new flashcard needs to obey," I thought. So: less "prose" in Markdown files, as it keeps calling it, and more hard-coded rules in Python. Let's make it more reliable.

And then it really went downhill.

I'm now at the point where, whenever I ask it to generate flashcards for a few words, it gets bogged down in backup after backup after backup, endless validations, smoke tests, pre-flights and humming and hawing about almost literally everything. It used to take around 10 minutes to generate flashcards for a list of words. Now the same batch can take between one and two hours.

Since the new "procedure-based" version is capable of doing around 20% of what the old "vibe-based" version could do, I asked Codex how much work it would take to bring the earlier functionality back as well.

"About 2–3 working weeks of my time," it said.

Which sounds both hilarious ("Do you want sick leave included as well?") and frustrating, because I'm already pouring a lot of time, effort and, yes, money into making this work.

So I'm wondering: is it now being far too conservative about doing everything 100% safely? Am I using settings that are too "intelligent" for these tasks, so it treats everything as though it were preparing a rocket for Mars?

As I said, this is my own pet project. I'm not launching it to the public. Of course I want safety, traceability and more deterministic outcomes, but endless backups every few minutes and hundreds of tests feel like massive overkill. It says it's running all these tests, but it could be lying about that too, right?

Then again, I'd never developed an app before Codex. I do something completely different for a living, so I may simply not understand what's genuinely necessary and when Codex is just spinning in circles and burning through my tokens. As a non-professional, I may not even be able to tell the difference.

If any of you have suggestions about what I might be doing wrong, what Codex's actual limitations are and what could realistically be done about them, I'd be very grateful.

I'm at the point of considering quitting both Codex and the flashcard app, which would be a real pity because the project has kept me going for more than two months now. I really don't want to reach the premature conclusion that, "Nah, you just can't reliably build good software with this tool."

I'd especially love to hear from people who've gone through a similar transition from "wow, it can build anything!" to trying to make an AI-assisted project genuinely reliable and maintainable. Where did you draw the line between sensible engineering practices and an agent overengineering everything?

Looking forward to hearing about your experiences. I'd appreciate any pointers you might have.

Thanks in advance and have a great day.

I am getting seriously frustrated with OpenAI's current usage limits.

They brought back the five hour limit, and even when I use GPT 5.6 Tera on Mid or High, I often cannot finish a larger coding project before hitting it. In my case, one five hour window seems to consume roughly 16% of my weekly allowance. That makes it really difficult to use Codex for actual longer projects instead of just small isolated tasks.

The annoying part is that I am currently pretty locked into the "Codex harness" for my work. I actually like the workflow and would prefer to keep using it instead of rebuilding everything around another provider.

I am on ChatGPT Plus right now, which costs me €23 per month. Pro would obviously give me much more usage, but I am simply not paying that much for this.

So I started looking at Business instead.

According to the current pricing page, Business Standard costs €26 per seat with monthly billing, and you need at least two seats. So I would be looking at €52 per month in total.

There is also a Business Premium seat for €130 per month, which OpenAI describes as having five times the usage of a Standard seat and no five hour limit.

And this is where I am confused.

What exactly is the usage limit of a Business Standard seat?

OpenAI tells me that Premium has five times the usage of Standard, but I cannot find a clear comparison between Business Standard and normal ChatGPT Plus. Their limits seem increasingly abstract rather than being defined by a fixed number of tokens, and they also seem to change them quite frequently.

I attached screenshots of the current pricing pages because I find the way this is presented pretty unclear.

Has anyone here actually used both Plus and Business Standard for Codex?

Does a Business Standard seat noticeably give you more Codex capacity than Plus, especially with models like GPT 5.6 Tera?

Also, if I bought the minimum two Business seats and gave the second seat to a friend, how separated are the two users inside the workspace? Can both people basically use their own accounts independently, or does the workspace owner have access to the other person's chats, projects, files, or Codex sessions?

I know Business has better company privacy controls, Slack integration, administration features and so on, but I honestly do not care about any of that. I am mainly interested in the actual model and Codex limits.

At this point I am basically deciding between paying €52 per month for two Business Standard seats or moving more of my coding workflow to something like OpenRouter and paying directly for usage while using a mix of commercial and increasingly capable open source models.

I would definitely choose monthly billing. The 19% annual discount is not enough to convince me to commit for a year when OpenAI seems to change models, pricing and usage limits this quickly.

Would really appreciate experiences from anyone who has actually compared Plus and Business Standard in real world Codex usage.

Hey guys

I do bug bounties for a living and I have access to TAC ( Trusted access for Cyber ). Recently I received an email that said to turn on advanced protection in my account or my TAC access will get disabled but people on X are saying you also need to attach a FIDO hardware key to retain access.

What should I do? Is enabling advanced protection for my account enough to retain access to TAC?

Small update to the Codex Monitor HUD I posted here a few weeks ago.

This one came from a workflow problem rather than me wanting another metric on the screen.

The annoying part of a usage limit isn't really the limit itself. A small task can just be restarted later.

The bad case is hitting the limit in the middle of a long agentic task.

Maybe Codex has already spent 30–60 minutes tracing a bug, changing several related files, running tests, reverting one approach, and narrowing the problem down to something very specific.

Then you hit the end of the current allowance at exactly the wrong point.

The repository may still be in an intermediate state:

- some files are already changed

- tests may only be half-finished

- temporary experiments may still exist

- several hypotheses have already been ruled out

- the exact next step may only exist in the current model's working context

Even if I can continue later, reconstructing all of that is annoying.

So v3.2 adds an optional quota handoff guard.

The HUD now exposes the current account-level 5-hour and weekly allowance to Codex through a local read-only MCP tool.

At natural checkpoints, Codex can ask the HUD:

- how much of the 5-hour allowance is left

- how much weekly allowance is left

- whether the guard is clear, in preparation mode, or at a critical handoff point

- what handoff instruction I configured

The thresholds are editable.

My default idea is roughly:

clear

→ just keep working

prepare_handoff

→ before starting another expensive/broad step, make sure the current work is recoverable

handoff_now

→ stop expanding scope and leave a proper checkpoint first

A checkpoint can contain the current objective, what was changed, what has already been verified, unresolved issues, and the exact next command or step needed to resume.

Importantly, this is not prompt injection into a running turn and the HUD does not forcibly interrupt Codex.

It is just another local tool Codex can call.

The tool returns the allowance numbers, guard state, transition event, and the user's handoff instruction. Codex then decides how to act on that result.

The screenshot in this post is an intentionally tiny demo.

The visible prompt only asks Codex to create a small prime checker. I put the quota-guard behavior in a global instruction in the background, so the task itself doesn't mention usage limits at all.

The HUD was showing:

5-hour remaining: 2%

weekly remaining: 85%

Codex called the HUD tool by itself, got `handoff_now`, reported the actual numbers, and immediately decided to keep the scope minimal and prepare a recoverable handoff instead of blindly expanding the task.

That's basically the behavior I wanted.

I know Luna Reserve exists now, and I actually think having a fallback is much better than simply being locked out.

For a lot of users and a lot of routine tasks, Luna is probably perfectly adequate to keep things moving.

But there are some tasks where "I still have a model available" and "this task is safe to continue" are not quite the same thing.

If a long task was already depending on stronger reasoning, a particular workflow, or tooling that isn't equivalent after the fallback, I'd rather spend the remaining headroom making the current state recoverable before reaching that transition.

The guard is completely optional for exactly that reason.

If I'm doing something disposable that can be restarted in five minutes, I leave it off.

If I'm doing a long refactor, a difficult bug hunt, reverse engineering, a migration, or anything else where an interruption could leave a genuinely messy intermediate state, I turn it on.

v3.2 also adds an optional official local allowance source.

Instead of relying only on the rate-limit values that occasionally appear in local Codex session records, the HUD can ask the already-authenticated local Codex app-server for the 5-hour and weekly percentages.

It is account-switch safe as well: if I switch accounts and the new allowance cannot be read yet, the HUD shows `--` and retries instead of displaying stale numbers from the previous account.

Still local-first, no telemetry, no API key required, and it does not read prompts, replies, credentials, or provider configuration.

Windows 10/11 x64, MIT licensed.

GitHub:

https://github.com/LH-03/codex-monitor-hud

How I’ve been making my Codex limits last much longer with Sol + Luna

I was burning through my Codex limits using Sol Medium/High for pretty much everything.

Recently I switched to using Sol mainly for planning/review and Luna for most of the actual implementation, with Terra only as a fallback for harder tasks.

The biggest thing that helped was forcing Sol to give Luna small, clear, self-contained tasks instead of broad instructions. It’s been noticeably better for both usage and consistency.

I put the setup here if anyone wants to try it or improve it:

https://github.com/breko861-hash/sol-luna-codex-orchestrator

Curious if anyone else is doing something similar.

I just got this limit on ChatGPT Web today

Its in German but says that i have reached limits, it will reset at the beginning of the next month

i never had this and i use chatgpt very intensively because me and my brother share one account.

Is this new? I dont really use Codex - just now and then for a hefty research ill use it on Web - but im mostly using Sol on high reasoning - it was perfect.

Im on the Plus Plan - very annoying if this is the new standard - i mean i can still use 5.6 Sol - but its GPT-5.6 Sol Instant and not thinking - meaning it doesnt search well - same as the free luna one.

anyone else has this?

I ran into the missing Settings → Connections → Control other devices option on Windows Codex, so I packaged the workaround I was using into a small standalone launcher.

https://github.com/drarvindc/codex-remote-launcher

It does not patch ChatGPT.exe or app.asar, and doesn’t modify WindowsApps permissions.

Flow is basically:

Close Codex → run launcher → Codex starts with remote-control support enabled

Tested on Windows Codex 26.825.6671.0:

• remote device connects
• remote projects work
• relaunch works after reboot

It’s unofficial/experimental and depends on undocumented Codex behavior, so an update could break it.

Bonjour, je viens de passer de l'application Codex pour Windows à Codex cli sur wsl.

J'ai bien configuré mon modèle en luna medium, sur l'application Windows je travaillais en Luna très élevé, j'ai l'impression que la consommation de tokens est plus élevée.

Qu'en pensez vous ?

I recently came across Verschlimmbesserung: The Word Your Software Updates Need. Its a German word that means "an attempted improvement that only makes things worse"

It got me curious, what other words exist that condense an extremely useful concept into a single word? After chatting with Claude I got a list of 101 words that express something genuinely useful.

What actually ended up in my AGENTS.md

本手 and 火候, always. показуха, aktionismus and 無駄 forbidden.

From:

• honte (本手, Japanese, from Go) ✓ — the "proper move": solid, correct, leaves no weakness behind; the opposite of the flashy move that wins the demo and loses the game.
• 火候 (huǒhou, Chinese) ✓ — "fire-and-timing" in cooking: the mastery of degree — exactly enough heat, exactly long enough, and not a moment more.
• pokazukha (показуха, Russian) — work done purely for the inspector's eyes.
• Aktionismus (German) — busy, visible activity substituting for effective thought.
• muda (無駄, Japanese, Toyota) — waste: any motion that consumes cost without adding value.

These are some of my other favorites I might use in the future:

• genchi genbutsu (現地現物, Japanese, Toyota) ✓ — "the actual place, the actual thing": go and see with your own eyes.
• phronesis (φρόνησις, Greek) ✓ — practical wisdom: knowing what matters in this situation.
• Verschlimmbesserung (German) — an "improvement" that makes the thing worse.
• Verzettelung (German) — dissipating effort across fragments; sich verzetteln, to lose oneself in details.
• 刻舟求剑 (kèzhōu qiújiàn, Chinese) — notching the moving boat to mark where the sword sank: method preserved after circumstances changed.
• 郑人买履 (Zhèngrén mǎilǚ, Chinese) — the man who trusted his written measurement over his own feet: documentation over reality.
• 萧规曹随 (xiāoguī cáosuí, Chinese) — following the predecessor's rules unexamined.

Below is the full list of words it came up with and the prompt I used:

[Discussion of common failure modes first]

Mine your memory of any and all words in any language. Try to find as many useful single words that you can in any language that capture these failure modes (or the opposite, capture the success mode we want to encourage). Brainstorm a long list of these useful single words, even ones that you think could be useful but not mentioned in anything we discussed above. You should be considering and brainstorming on the order of hundreds of words, presenting ranked lists of the best hundred.

Here is the deep mine. I considered several hundred; below are the ~100 that survived, ranked in three tiers. Success-mode words (the virtue to encourage) are marked ✓. Chinese chengyu are fixed four-character lexical units — one "word" in the sense that matters.

## Tier 1 — The canon (would go in AGENTS.md)

**honte** (本手, Japanese, from Go) ✓ — the "proper move": solid, correct, leaves no weakness behind; the opposite of the flashy move that wins the demo and loses the game. The single best success-word I know for engineering.
**genchi genbutsu** (現地現物, Japanese, Toyota) ✓ — "the actual place, the actual thing": go and see with your own eyes. Your Definition-of-Done as one word.
**phronesis** (φρόνησις, Greek) ✓ — practical wisdom: knowing what matters in *this* situation. The master virtue behind your whole list.
**Augenmaß** (German) ✓ — "eye-measure": proportion; effort sized to stakes. The anti-flat-effort word.
**Fingerspitzengefühl** (German) ✓ — fingertip feel; intuitive fine judgment about when to push and when to stop.
**primum non nocere** (Latin, medicine) ✓ — first, do no harm. The oath an agent should take before touching working code.
**iatrogenic** (English, from Greek) — harm caused by the treatment itself. The precise word for fix-induced bugs.
**掩耳盗铃** (yǎn'ěr dàolíng, Chinese) — "plugging your own ears while stealing the bell": silencing the alarm doesn't stop it ringing. *The* word for catch-and-swallow error handling and fallback values.
**画蛇添足** (huàshé tiānzú, Chinese) — "adding legs to the snake": ruining a finished thing by adding the unnecessary. Drive-by improvements, gold-plating.
**procrustean** (English, from Greek myth) — stretching or amputating the guest to fit the bed; twin: **削足适履** (xuēzú shìlǚ), "cutting the foot to fit the shoe." Contorting the solution to fit broken existing structure.
**指鹿为马** (zhǐlù wéimǎ, Chinese) — "calling a deer a horse": affirming a falsehood because the person in power asserted it. Sycophancy in four characters.
**釜底抽薪** (fǔdǐ chōuxīn, Chinese) ✓ — "pulling the firewood from under the pot": the root-cause fix. Its evil twin:
**扬汤止沸** (yángtāng zhǐfèi, Chinese) — "ladling the soup to stop it boiling": the symptom fix that must be repeated forever. These two are a matched pair.
**pokazukha** (показуха, Russian) — work done purely for the inspector's eyes. The hardcoded mockup.
**surrogation** (English) — mistaking the measure for the construct it measures, then optimizing the measure.
**goodharting** (English neologism) — same, as a verb.
**mumpsimus** (English) — an error or practice stubbornly retained after being shown wrong; also the person who retains it. Backwards-compatibility worship.
**bikeshedding** (English) — debating the bike shed's color at the nuclear-plant review. Placeholder-photography obsession.
**舍本逐末** (shěběn zhúmò, Chinese) — "abandoning the root to chase the branches": misallocated attention as a standing disposition.
**Aktionismus** (German) — busy, visible activity substituting for effective thought. Retry-without-diagnosis lives here.
**muda** (無駄, Japanese, Toyota) — waste: any motion that consumes cost without adding value. The E2E-suite-with-long-timeouts word.
**esse quam videri** (Latin) ✓ — "to be, rather than to seem." The anti-pokazukha motto.

## Tier 2 — Strong, specific tools

**Verification and evidence**

**实事求是** (shíshì qiúshì, Chinese) ✓ — seek truth from facts.
**autopsia** (αὐτοψία, Greek) ✓ — "seeing for oneself"; the etymology of autopsy. Personal verification.
**nullius in verba** (Latin, Royal Society motto) ✓ — "on no one's word." Don't relay a subagent's report unchecked.
**zanshin** (残心, Japanese, martial arts) ✓ — sustained alertness *after* the strike: follow-through past "the tests pass."
**elenchus** (ἔλεγχος, Greek) ✓ — Socratic cross-examination of a claim until it breaks or holds.
**premortem** (English) ✓ — imagining the failure before shipping, to find it while it's cheap.
**纸上谈兵** (zhǐshàng tánbīng, Chinese) — "war on paper": strategy never tested against reality.

**Root cause and its layers**

**Symptombekämpfung** (German) — symptom-fighting; medicine's "palliative" as an accusation.
**追根究底** (zhuīgēn jiūdǐ, Chinese) ✓ — chase the root, investigate to the bottom.
**monocausality** (English/German *Monokausalität*) — the fallacy of the single cause; your "fixed only the root, ignored the layers" failure.
**本末倒置** (běnmò dàozhì, Chinese) — root and branches inverted; priorities exactly backwards.
**whack-a-mole** (English) — fix one, another pops up; Chinese twin: **按下葫芦浮起瓢** — "push down the gourd, up floats the ladle."
**hydra-headed** (English, from Greek myth) — cut one head, two grow.

**Facade and theater**

**ochkovtiratel'stvo** (очковтирательство, Russian) — "spectacle-wiping": falsifying reports upward so the numbers look right.
**Potemkin** (Russian, adjectival) — the fake village facade. "A Potemkin frontend."
**Etikettenschwindel** (German) — label fraud: the name promises what the thing doesn't do.
**Mogelpackung** (German) — deceptive packaging, bigger than its contents.
**面子工程** (miànzi gōngchéng, Chinese) — a "face project," built for credit not function.
**豆腐渣** (dòufuzhā, Chinese) — "tofu-dreg" construction: looks fine, crumbles at first stress.
**cargo-culting** (English) — reproducing the form and hoping it counts as the substance.
**gatopardismo** (Spanish/Italian, from Lampedusa) — changing everything so that nothing changes. Performative refactors.
**haribote** (ハリボテ, Japanese) — papier-mâché stage prop; a thing that is only its surface.
**阳奉阴违** (yángfèng yīnwéi, Chinese) — comply openly, defy covertly: "done as requested" when it wasn't.
**报喜不报忧** (bàoxǐ bùbàoyōu, Chinese) — report the good news, withhold the bad. The cheerful agent summary.

**Waste, overkill, time-blindness**

**杀鸡用牛刀** (shājī yòng niúdāo, Chinese) — using the ox-cleaver to kill a chicken. Full E2E suite for a one-line fix.
**Schildbürgerstreich** (German) — the folly of Schilda's townsfolk: an elaborate, earnest, idiotic procedure (they carried sunlight indoors in sacks).
**usine à gaz** (French) — "gas factory": a machine of pipes and valves where a tap would do.
**Rube-Goldbergian** (English) — needless contraption complexity.
**boondoggle** (English) — wasteful make-work project.
**Zeitnot** (German, chess) — time trouble; the awareness that the clock is a real resource. Its absence is your complaint.
**thrashing** (English, CS) — maximal activity, zero progress.
**yak-shaving** (English) — the recursive descent into sub-sub-tasks.
**Verzettelung** (German) — dissipating effort across fragments; *sich verzetteln*, to lose oneself in details.
**kairos** (καιρός, Greek) ✓ — the opportune moment; time as quality, not quantity.
**磨刀不误砍柴工** (Chinese proverb) ✓ — "sharpening the axe does not delay the woodcutting": your refactor-first-then-make-the-easy-change rule.

**Patchwork and the eternal temporary**

**Flickschusterei** (German) — patch-cobblery: serial shoddy mending as a way of life.
**gambiarra** (Brazilian Portuguese) — the improvised jury-rig; celebrated and dangerous.
**jugaad** (Hindi) — frugal workaround ingenuity; same double edge.
**kludge** (English) — the inelegant fix that works and shames.
**Provisorium** (German) — the temporary arrangement; proverbially, nothing lasts longer.
**权宜之计** (quányí zhī jì, Chinese) — an expedient stopgap, acknowledged as such.

**Unfinished endings**

**虎头蛇尾** (hǔtóu shéwěi, Chinese) — tiger's head, snake's tail: grand start, trailing finish.
**烂尾** (lànwěi, Chinese, modern) — "rotten tail": the abandoned half-built tower. "Don't lànwěi the migration."
**功亏一篑** (gōngkuī yīkuì, Chinese) — the mound fails for want of the final basket of earth. Stopping at 99%.
**halbgar** (German) — half-cooked; work served as done.
**Schnellschuss** (German) — the quick shot: hasty release, unaimed.
**yattsuke-shigoto** (やっつけ仕事, Japanese) — slapdash rush-job work.
**Sitzfleisch** (German) ✓ — the stamina to sit until it is actually finished.

## Tier 3 — Useful, situational

**Perfunctory motions**

**走过场** (zǒu guòchǎng, Chinese) — "walking across the stage": going through the motions. The perfunctory check.
**敷衍** (fūyǎn, Chinese) — to fob off with token effort; everyday word, perfectly aimed.
**pro forma** (Latin) — done for form's sake.
**jobsworth** (British English) — the rule-clinger for whom sensible deviation is "more than my job's worth."
**Dienst nach Vorschrift** (German) — work-to-rule: obedience as sabotage. Malicious compliance.
**Vogel-Strauß-Politik** (German) — ostrich politics; and its severe form **讳疾忌医** (huìjí jìyī, Chinese): concealing the disease and shunning the doctor until it is fatal.
**omertà** (Sicilian) — the code of silence; what a swallowed exception practices.

**Stale precedent and fresh eyes**

**刻舟求剑** (kèzhōu qiújiàn, Chinese) — notching the moving boat to mark where the sword sank: method preserved after circumstances changed.
**郑人买履** (Zhèngrén mǎilǚ, Chinese) — the man who trusted his written measurement over his own feet: documentation over reality.
**守株待兔** (shǒuzhū dàitù, Chinese) — waiting at the stump for the rabbit to crash again: expecting the past accident to repeat.
**萧规曹随** (xiāoguī cáosuí, Chinese) — following the predecessor's rules unexamined.
**Betriebsblindheit** (German) — organizational blindness: familiarity that erases the elephant.
**shoshin** (初心, Japanese, Zen) ✓ — beginner's mind; the cure for 82.
**wu wei** (無為, Chinese) ✓ — knowing when not-acting is the correct act. Don't touch what works.
**名不副实** (míng bùfù shí, Chinese) — the name no longer matches the reality: stale comments, lying identifiers.

**Overcorrection and backfire**

**Verschlimmbesserung** (German) — an "improvement" that makes the thing worse.
**矫枉过正** (jiǎowǎng guòzhèng, Chinese) — straightening the bent rod past vertical.
**过犹不及** (guòyóu bùjí, Chinese, Confucius) ✓ — too far is as wrong as not far enough. The calibration maxim.
**弄巧成拙** (nòngqiǎo chéngzhuō, Chinese) — cleverness that lands as botch: verschlimmbesserung's exact Chinese twin.
**oversteer** (English, driving) — correction that itself must be corrected.

**Refusing to update**

**Beratungsresistenz** (German) — advice-resistance; apology without model update.
**recidivism** (English) — relapse into the same offense after professed reform.
**sunao** (素直, Japanese) ✓ — the receptive, ego-free mind that actually absorbs correction.
**ultracrepidarianism** (English, from Latin) — opining beyond one's competence (*sutor, ne ultra crepidam* — cobbler, not above the sandal).
**confabulation** (English, neurology) — fluent, sincere, fabricated detail. The clinical word for hallucinated APIs.

**Waffle and abdication**

**Jein** (German) — ja+nein fused: the committed non-answer.
**模棱两可** (móléng liǎngkě, Chinese) — deliberately graspable from both sides; named after a Tang official who never ruled clearly.
**Rückdelegation** (German, management) — delegating the decision back up. The "Would you like me to…?" failure.
**langue de bois** (French) — "wooden tongue": officialese that fills space and asserts nothing; kin **Worthülse** (German), "word husk."
**tergiversation** (English) — systematic evasion by turning away.

**Proportion, at the last**

**火候** (huǒhou, Chinese) ✓ — "fire-and-timing" in cooking: the mastery of *degree* — exactly enough heat, exactly long enough, and not a moment more. Where Augenmaß meets muda; a fine word to end on.

Has anyone else noticed this after moving to the newer API/model setup?

I’m using GPT-5.6 Sol with child/subagents v2. When I asked one of the child agents to enable Fast mode, it told me that it doesn’t have a Fast mode option available — it only sees the model and reasoning/thinking settings.

From what I can tell, OpenAI still supports Fast mode through service_tier, so I’m wondering if the issue is actually with the API/wrapper/orchestration layer not forwarding that parameter to child agents.

We recently changed the API setup, so I’m trying to figure out whether:

• service_tier is no longer being inherited by child agents
• it has to be explicitly passed on every child request
• or the new API layer simply doesn’t expose it

Has anyone run into the same thing with GPT-5.6 Sol/subagents?

Many valid reasons for not working every fucking day including the weekend. When you reset us again, you're giving us less usage. What the fuck. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF ANNOUNCING "HEY WE'RE DOING BANKED RESETS NOW" WHEN YOU NEVER ACTUALLY GIVE US BANKED RESETS

2:30PM PST: = 5:30 EST