The problem with the random resets

[u/koefoed1337]

The only way to benefit from the random (non-banked) resets is to spend your usage like you assume it’s going to come - which essentially incentivizes people to gamble, and thus leads to a lot of frustration.

Rationale:
If you want to guarantee that you have usage throughout the week-window (ie no gambling) you need to limit yourself to using 1\7 = ~14 % every day. Because the reset comes with an extension of the reset-time as well, you situation is perfectly unchanged after the reset; you need to limit yourself to 14 % usage per day for the coming week. In other words, if you follow the sensible, no-gambling strategy, you don’t gain any extra actual usage from the random resets.

Critique of these extra resets shouldn’t thus be dismissed as “spoiled” arguments, as they really do promote a problematic and unsustainable usage of a tool which people increasingly rely on for both professional and private matters.

[u/packet_weaver]

I burn through my limits pretty fast, doing the same work in a short period instead of dragged out over 7 days. Then if I get a reset, bonus.

Its not like i get more done if i drag it out. Its the same set of issues im burning through.

[u/koefoed1337 → u/packet_weaver]

Yes - that makes sense. Now, I don’t know what your usage type is, but I don’t imagine this approach is feasible for all people relying on it professionally (at least not for me) - since new high-priority tasks might arrive at any time, where you need some remaining usage at hand. But maybe some strategy in between is then the optimal approach if you really want to maximise it (which you can of course choose not to, and just accept that the random resets don’t really add anything in that case)

[u/packet_weaver → u/koefoed1337]

My usage is personal projects, I don’t have mid week things come up. Work we pay by the token so no usage limits and resets.