Not to mention the gene-therapy version of the same PCSK9 inhibition pathway called VERVE-102 which Eli Lilly is putting through human trials as we speak.
I imagine that stacking the LP(a) antisense therapy with a PCSK9 inhibitor, and/or a statin or Nexlizet would probably lower odds of heart disease death by two to three orders of magnitude. But I guess there isn't solid mortality data to say for sure.
I really hope they reconsider adding Fable access back to the subscription plans, at least the 20x plan. I know it was the original intention when the 14 day (I think) time frame was originally announced, and they were working to keep it on subscription plans. But no word if thats even a thing anymore?
The market will force them to bring it back. They're probably capacity constrained right now, or need to figure out whether they need another pricing tier for it to "fit in a subscription". What they don't want is for someone to code for 4 days of the week and cap out every week.
Ha! It’s silly easy for me to bum in the “premium” tier - the highest one my employer is able to select for me.
With proper skills and validations, it’s quite easy for me to spin out a Claude instance and keep it running in the background for every idea / problem / bug etc.
Like for example when a new request comes in, or when I have an idea for refactor / improvement, I brainstorm, weed out all the uncertainty and details, then just create a plan and let if follow it (using sonnet / haiku for execution)
I would have 4-5 simultaneous instances running - and all of them produce valuable results.
But then 2-3 days into a week I hit my weekly limit.
And the company can’t pay more for me within Anthropic’s enterprise structure, except for the “extra” api costs. Which itself sounds quite silly to me.
I’ve resorted to running the brainstorming and planning with Claude, but have other tools / companies execute the actual implementation… doesn’t work as well but what can you do…
Right, but originally they announced a period of time it was included in plans, and then they were "working hard" to extend the period and eventually make it a permanent fixture of the plans.
I'd imagine they want to do price segmentation. Sell the best model for $50k a year to corporations willing to pay full price, keep the rest of us on a lower tier. Gotta pay for that infra somehow.
I just don't really understand the entire strategy behind this. Or their horrible, horrible communication.
Because right now it's as if Fable/Mythos 5 is "the end of the line". It's as if this is the best their models are ever going to be. So what the hell are we going to get next? All of their models will forever inch closer to Fable, but never reach it? That doesn't make any sense.
It all seems so dramatic. Instead of just saying honestly "Look, this model is a beast to run, but we're striving to reach the same quality in a cheaper model down the line" all we get is "Oh my god, it's so big and scary, and it costs so much to run, woe is me!"
So if bigger model is "smarter" but you effectively wind up with a "shared hosting" model where a coherent inherence node(s) that cost $2m or something can run max 10x customer workloads simultaneously ... not sure what that can be priced at.
If it turns out a $10m/10x shared node can host even smarter models, then what?
Fable/Mythos are based on the same model. Not totally clear whether they have identical weights (just different external guardrails), or there's also some slight finetuning difference.
The fact that we are coming up on a month of Fable being unavailable with essentially zero actual signal from Anthropic around when it may be back is crazy to me. Yet still we have these random new products coming out?
> Anthropic @AnthropicAI Jun 27, 2026 · 12:29 AM UTC
> Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure.
> We’re restoring access for these organizations quickly, and we’re continuing to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again.
I mean the company has like 3k employees or more right? Lots of them are just working on more applied AI use cases that don't require frontier AI just the right integrations and structure etc.
Opus 4.8/ GPT 5.6 level models with the right workflows/ data/ access are still good enough to do huge amounts of economically valueable work.
This plus it's entirely plausible their employees have access to Fable or their own other pre-released models internally. Other than the perks you mentioned they've got excellent distribution too.
HEB is still a lot better than the national chains, but HEB has also started cutting costs in various areas. Their tortilla chips are no longer made in store, the bakery is essentially just frozen dough that comes in and is baked. Their cakes have historically been dense and dry. A lot of the time when they come out with their store brand product, they will just drop the name brand now, and in some cases it's clearly a downgrade.
So while I still admire HEB and choose it over anything else, it's on its way down in terms of quality and value.
Haven't been to Central Market (their high end brand) in a while, but it's night and day compared to HEB.
> Update: Since these measurements were taken, Claude Code has rolled out Tool Search with Deferred Loading, which loads MCP tool schemas on-demand and reduces context usage by 85%+. The context bloat described in Problem 1 is largely addressed for users on current Claude Code versions. The performance, debugging, and architectural arguments below still apply.
Do people really just show up and hope for the best anymore?
The "box office" is not even really a thing anymore at most theaters. And the single person you talk to inside that is the "box office" just uses the same system you can reserve seats yourself on your own time?
Pretty much every theater is reserved seating these days. Why would I risk showing up last minute on a whim and end up in a horrible seat near the front of the screen?
In the small town where I live we have a small cinema with three screens. They always start the movie at the advertised time - no adverts, just a few trailers in the preceding 10 minutes. You can book online, but I usually just walk in and buy a ticket at the desk. The seats aren't assigned, so you can pick whichever you like.
Occasionally I have a "private screening" where I'm the only one in the auditorium. The most recent example was "The Mummy". I hadn't fully thought throught the implications of watching a horror movie alone in the middle of a darkened 65-seat auditorium!
There's another town a few miles away where a similar cinema has both assigned seating and 20 minutes of adverts before the movie.
Mostly because unless it is a really desirable movie, hoping for the best has an expected outcome close to the best.I am a planner in most things, but for movies, it often simply does not matter.
This is surreal. I've never pre-purchased a movie ticket in my life. I show up, buy a ticket and a box of Milk Duds, wander down the dark hall, find a seat, turn off my phone, and the lights go dark.
Exactly the same as it's always been, and it works beautifully. I can't imagine a reason to mess with it.
I just know there has to be some psychology in play with these promos. The promo during December got me to upgrade to the $100 plan, and I know I'm not the only one.
I suspect it’s much more about understanding user behavior, i.e: given more allowance off-peak, do users change when they use Claude? And from there, that will inform how plans are designed long term. If they discover that offering higher off-peak limits meaningfully changes how/when users interact with the service, they can use discounted off-peak plans to flatten usage. I would be very surprised if this promotion had anything to do with encouraging people to upgrade.
There's definitely psychology in play, but I think it might be less "trying to get you to spend more" and more "trying to incentivize load-shifting", which (to me at least) is a lot less sinister-- my utility does this too for electricity, and nobody attributes malicious intent to it.
We all know these services see huge load spikes and sometimes service degradation when America wakes up, and I bet they'd appreciate it if as many "chug-and-plug" agent workflows moved to overnight hours as possible.
My assumption was always that the December promo was a combination – they were presumably way under capacity because everyone was on holiday given how enterprise-heavy they are, so giving people a bunch of extra usage with a loud promo meant a whole bunch of people would try Claude and see how good it had gotten at very little cost to Anthropic.
I found that when I have “infinite” tokens my behaviour changed. 3-5 tabs so I’m not waiting, free side quests, huge review skills over whole codebase, skills that wrap 10 other skills. It’s like going from expensive data to uncapped.
I think these token doubles are there to kick you into a abundance mindset (for want of a better term) so going back feels painful. Stop counting tokens, focus on your project and the cost of your own time.
I have this as a skill Claude created to run the rest. It mentions each skill in turn, see below. It’s not deterministic but it definitely runs each skill and it’s raised a bunch of issues, which I then selectively deal with. Where I can, once an issue is identified, I make deterministic tests.
Text includes:
Invoke each review/audit skill in sequence. Each skill runs its own comprehensive checks and returns findings. Capture the findings from each and incorporate them into the final report.
IMPORTANT: Invoke each skill using the Skill tool. Each skill is independently runnable and will produce its own detailed output. Summarize findings per skill into the unified report format.
You're probably right. I've been thinking about why anthropic's revenue keeps soaring. I think in terms of "new users trying the product" we're definitely somewhere in the slowing part of the S-curve (at least in the US), but there are other growth contributors. Two bigs ones are people finding new use-cases and people figuring out how to scale up current use-cases to use more tokens. Perhaps little temporary-usage-boosts like this give people permission to attempt new use-cases or more scale and realize they could use a higher tiered plan.
The psychology is to hook you on the usage. A lot of people see a little movement in the usage meter and get cold feet about heavy usage. The prior $70 credit deal and now this offering are to try to get people to dive in, and hopefully retain that usage pattern afterwards.
Anthropic's models are obviously superior at coding right now but using 2-3 $20 accounts between different providers is still a very effective way to get good value. Gemini CLI and Codex seem to be at least 2x more permissive on usage. The models are good enough.
Plus we are technologists, we want to try out different stuff and compare.
That's precisely what I do, with subscriptions to all of them. Gemini almost seems unlimited...like I never hit limits with it. Don't even know how to check my usage for the subscription plans on that.
But increasingly I'm using Claude for basically all real coding. I ask Gemini and Codex questions, but I'm honestly in awe at Opus' ridiculous capabilities.
I tried gemini the other day and after asking it 3 things I hit a limit. That's after gemini cli crashed my terminal twice for some reason (just opening it `gemini` caused the freeze -> crash). I must be doing something wrong because using gemini flash over openrouter I barely spend credits, yet my subscription ran out almost instantly.
Gemini 3.1 pro under a Google AI pro subscription has just recently started imposing really small weekly limits. I went from it feeling unlimited to hitting a 4 day quota in 2 hours of use. Very odd. Wonder if too many people jumped on with the 3.1 pro release.
Same experience with the recent quota change on Google AI Pro. People have asked for yearly plans but given the vague and ever shifting limits it would be crazy to commit long-term.
It's faster to change user behavior then to buy and setup new hardware. I bet this is just to bleed off the their growing pains with the influx of users.
(quote from cached blog post)
We all know who this is directed at. I wonder if Anthropic will respond by removing the ridiculous 50% stipulation with Fable.
reply