by aadyachinubhai ·
If AI can solve Navier Stokes grade problems, it should take a stab at such a thing too. I know the language is fundamentally not "english" or another widely used one so it can't do any inference on it but worth an experiment.
by illuminated ·
As a Pro subscriber, I've just received the following email from OpenAI:
Hi [FirstName],
We’re introducing dots for all Pro customers, a new Pro 500 tier that includes our highest usage limits and Ultrafast, and adjusting the usage allowance included in Pro 200 after October 29th.
With models like GPT-6.1 Sol, you can still get more work done with Pro than you could before. Here’s what’s changing.
Changes to Pro 200
GPT-6.1 Sol brings near-Astra capabilities to a model you can use every day. It’s more intelligent than GPT-6 Sol, so you spend less time going back and forth and can take on work the previous model couldn’t handle.
As our models become more capable and efficient we’re changing how we calculate the usage for Pro 200. Our commitment is that, over time, your subscription will continue to help you get more work done with an increasing level of quality. We are also committing to not reintroducing the 5hr limit so that you can fully use your weekly usage when you want.
Starting October 30, 2026, your included usage in ChatGPT Work and Codex will decrease from 20 times to 10 times the ChatGPT Plus allowance. Your GPT-6 Pro limit in Chat will decrease from 200 to 100 messages per week. Your price remains unchanged and you’ll keep your current limits through October 29, 2026.
As a thank you for being an existing subscriber and to help you continue to build your most ambitious ideas and transition, we’re also giving you a one-time grant of 62,500 usage credits (a $2,500 USD value). You’ll see these appear in Settings > Usage. They will expire on December 31, 2026, and use of the credits is governed by the Service Credit Terms.
A new Pro 500 tier
For those who want even more usage and speed, the new Pro 500 tier offers our highest usage allowance, with 25 times the usage of Plus. It also includes access to Ultrafast, with up to 8 times faster token generation. Learn more about Pro 500 and compare plans.
Your Pro subscription includes dots
Your Pro subscription now includes dots: remarkably capable, always-on agents built to handle everything. Powered by GPT-6 Astra, dots have their own cloud computer, learn from feedback over time, and can work towards your goals 24/7. Conversations with your dot and work it does directly are included and don’t draw on your ChatGPT usage allowance. Learn more about dots.
Thank you for being part of the Pro community,
The OpenAI team
by LandOfMightDev ·
The business analysts write the ACs with generic "should match the approved mockups", we do the work, sometimes within the same sprint the designers edit the mockups subtlety (add a space, change a font size, change a few letters etc.) and then when the work is being tested, a defect always comes up. Sometimes this is months later and randomly we will have a regression in many spots. Normally it isn't that bad & only noticeable differences between the mockups got reported, however, recently the design team has started reporting defects related to pixel differences in spacing... I've asked the business analysts to include a picture of the mockup in the ticket to avoid these problems & the design team threw a fit saying it's better to use their mockup in live figma because it's more up to date.... I have caught the design team doing this & had a sc of my own when the tester reported a defect & the designers tried to play it off like we were both confused when confronted.
I have two issues with this... Firstly, can they really call it a defect if the spacing size differs slightly between the mockup and the actual page but the style is identical ? If it is being used consistently, I don't see how its a defect. The ACs don't say that it should be to the pixel of the mockup, but it should look like & follow the mockup's design... There is no ACs specifically calling out the margins and padding between elements to the pixel, so adding a defect seems ridiculous. Secondly, and maybe worse... using a live figma board to base the ACs off allows the designers to escape accountability. Any time the designers make a mistake, they can just edit the figma & their mistake turns into the developers mistake adding way more points to stories than would have been if they actually paid attention to the designs. It's so ridiculous that they can change the design mid sprint or sprints later & then call the closed out & completed work a defect, but when their design isn't followed by to the pixel, they have the audacity to open a defect. I'm talking they go into the HTML and then use that as a bases for a defect, if you looked at the mockup it would be identical!
Thoughts?