{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidfna3cgq3q2ovi5klvbeud7lt6uhxvas5rvscsfguaks273qdd4m",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjx7ptu6vyk2"
  },
  "path": "/t/understanding-the-new-codex-limit-system-after-the-april-9-update/1378768?page=2#post_24",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-20T19:20:09.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "textContent": "I already know that workflow. I’ve used Codex that way too, and I still do when it makes sense.\n\nWhat you keep framing as some deep insight is really just a basic workaround. A lot of people understood that from day one. The difference is, not everyone is using Codex for tiny edits, simple scaffolding, or toy-level tasks. Some of us are using it for heavier technical work, where sustained iteration matters and the current limits become a real constraint.\n\nSo no, this is not about me being vague or not knowing how to prompt. It’s about you assuming your lightweight usage pattern applies to workloads where it clearly doesn’t.\n\nAnd the patronizing tone doesn’t help your argument. It just makes a pretty shallow point sound more important than it is. I know the workaround already. I’m saying it’s not enough for the kind of work I’m actually doing. If a product only feels “good” when people narrow their usage and push the rest somewhere else, that’s a product limitation, not user error.",
  "title": "Understanding the New Codex Limit System After the April 9 Update"
}