I think yesterday was the last time it happened to me. I still hadn’t updated to v1.2. It happened with Claude Sonnet 4 (probably Thinking).
I haven’t tried again today, because suddenly I reached the rate limit with Claude Sonnet 
I know this off topic, but just know there’s one more person here that needs transparency regarding rate limits. A simple bar that fills up with each prompt, and a timer, would be so great.
Also, an even simpler thing that would help is adding some icon next to each model in the dropdown, so that we know we’ve reached the rate limit with which models, instead of having to send the prompt to see if we get the rate limit message
1 Like
There were some adjustments today I think after a report and yes would really be important to know if still occurs on 1.2.
1 Like
Happened to me today at least twice.
Pro+ is my subscription, I guess I do not understand what is v1.2 and what 1.2 Cursors? Can you just explain where and what to post and ask? As I am really tired of not having transparency what i use and what I can use. One day I can use sonnet 4, one day o3, one day Opus, all max version, then after it say I hit limits change agents, then again day after I can use all then again asking me to upgrade on Ultra… I would upgrade, if I would have any kind of transparency what I have and what I am paying for, so 20$ was not enough for pro, I increased to Pro + so that is not enough (beside all that I spend around $300 end of May, Jun for pay per use). OK so if I increase on Ultra, and that Is not enough again? What then??? Ok, can you make unlimited package, so I know I will not be interrupted 24/7 if I want to work and nonstop use opus or sonnet Max, no issues I would pay. But have transparency, how hard is that… how much I get for what i subscribe…
It was maybe 20? Problem is my app includes code for a rails dashboard ui app, a wordpress theme (wp serves most content including rails header/footer & “assets”), and a distributed app thingy that acts like a service mesh via rabbitmq fanout queues. llm misunderstanding/simplification in memories resulted in both inappropriate as-if-general memories AND llms reliably applied memories “out of context” (ha!). The feature is there now–earlier it was visible, possibly bc I’d chosen to try beta stuff, but my experience wrt memories convinced me not only to turn it off but also to go with default vs beta in general…so i thought the feature had been removed utterly but from your response i’m guessing it’s actually been there all along for those who opted in. I have enough trouble trying to get any llm to actually take app architecture into account, especially for the distributed bit, even when working on it by itself–“memories” might be useful for some other app; I dunno.