We're updating our Teams pricing to better adapt to an agentic world. These changes will start at your next billing renewal after September 15 for both monthly and yearly plans.
From fixed to API-based usage
Today, our Teams plans charge a fixed-cost per request and include the following:
Unlimited Tab and access to all core features
250 Sonnet requests per month
Additional usage is billed at $0.08/Sonnet request
As models have become more agentic, the cost of individual agent requests has grown increasingly variable. Using the same model, a single difficult prompt can consume an order of magnitude more tokens than a simple one.
Fixed costs per request aren't suited to this new reality. They force an overpricing of simple requests (e.g. a quick syntax question) and an underpricing of difficult ones (e.g. asking the agent to complete an entire PR). API-based pricing will better align both with the underlying LLM costs and with the value the agent delivers.
Under the new pricing, our Teams plan will transition to the following:
Unlimited Tab and access to all features
$20 of agent usage per user
Ability to purchase additional usage beyond this
All usage is consumed at public list API prices of the underlying model + $0.25 per million total tokens. This additional cost covers Cursor's code indexing, indexing model costs, and tool execution with custom models.
This change unifies our billing system. Our individual plans already use API-based usage in production.
What's next
Pricing changes will start at your next billing renewal after September 15.
If you need pooled usage or want to explore volume discounts, please reach out to [email protected].
We're grateful for your feedback as we continue evolving Cursor to better support your needs.
That's not typically what people mean when they use the word 'apparently' in that context. 'Apparent' and 'Apparently' aren't synonyms, which I guess can be confusing.
"You use apparently to indicate that the information you are giving is something that you have heard, but you are not certain that it is true." [1]
also, it was 500 1min after it happen (very quick count), then it went down to 40 and then it went up again. don't forget those numbers are provided by hamas
> will remain very skeptical that Gaza has rockets large enough to kill 500 people
In 2006, Hamas was fielding kit that could loft 17 kg of explosives [1]. Given the rocket is 66kg, that's a 25% payload fraction implying at least another 33kg of fuel at launch.
Solid fuel should deflagrate. But it looks like they historically used a sugar/KNO3 premix [2]. I think that could detonate when strapped to an explosive while encountering terrain. Add to that pressurized systems commonly found in a hospital, e.g. oxygen, and the deadliness of a collapsing building, and I can see their circa 2006 kit doing the job.
(Note: this is a back-of-the-envelope plausibility check only.)
> it could be the 500-1000lb bombs the IAF is dropping everywhere in Gaza
Sure. But those are precision munitions. I don't think there's an Occam's razor solution through this bit of the fog of war. (Yes, I know I'm deflecting from the horrors on the ground by thinking about the rocket mechanics. I'm going to try to observe my plane crash rule of ignoring attribution hypotheses for at least one week after.)
Speaking of fog of war, the IAF could easily release logs of sorties flown, ammo taken, ammo used, and where it was used. They could do that right now. They have not. Makes you think.
> the IAF could easily release logs of sorties flown, ammo taken, ammo used, and where it was used
It's an active war zone. There are good tactical reasons for not immediately disclosing this. (You also want to make damn sure that you didn't have a trigger-happy racist go off piste.) Conducting that audit credibly takes time.
Anyone arguing bombing a hospital at this time in this way furthered either side's strategic aims is missing context. This was a fuckup. To what degree, and at what level, is largely what's being lost or obscured.
Tactical? Hamas has no AF and limited to no AA. An audit would take time, but why then would you be posting misleading or false videos and making contradictory claims about the strike? For instance:
Edit: also check the footage the Israeli intelligence guy posted. Tell me that whistle you hear before impact truly sounds like a piece of falling debris.
Strategic? What exactly is the strategic goal of Israel? And how is that accomplished by starving Gaza and cutting off electricity and water? Or the wanton destruction of Gaza? The cruelty is the point and this was no fuckup.
One can't presume to know this. Not with soldiers' lives at stake. Also, there is real risk of regional conflagration. How an air force generates and sustains sorties is closely guarded, even in peacetime, for good reason.
First, you'd scrub the information. Second, you'd weigh whether it's absolutely exonerating. Absent both conditions, it doesn't make sense to release those data.
> What exactly is the strategic goal of Israel?
Removing the ability of a hostile neighbor to project power into their territory. Currently, the chosen route appears to be decapitation. Eliminating the government in Gaza so it cannot wage war.
To do that, Israel--a small country--has to maintain a web of regional and international support. Bombing a hospital might serve tactical aims à la total war. (There are zero cases of bombing a population into submission. The historical precedent is it strengthens resolve. Nevertheless, I mention it for completeness.)
Unless Israel can credibly show this was done by Hamas, it has already lost more than it could have ever hoped to have gained by bombing a hospital. Even if it were smack over an Islamic Jihad weapons depot or whatever.
> how is that accomplished by starving Gaza and cutting off electricity and water
It denies the enemy the capacity to organize and wage war. I'm not ignoring the humanitarian effects. Just noting that power plants have been legitimate military targets for ages, and water supplies since time immemorial.
Hospitals usually store large amounts of gas under high pressure, especially common is oxygen. And some of the rockets being produced inside the Gaza Strip have ranges of up to 160km (r160). That’s a lot of potential for an explosion… it’s heart breaking watching the news streaming from the region.
Yeah, video shot from north with rockets flying towards Netivot (eastward) or in some such general direction. Also not timestamp, so not much of use.
Al Jazeera Arabic video shows a point of view from al wafa medical towards Netivot (so eastward), and the failed rocket is flying initially northward, and was not fired from the sea at all, unlike the other video.
There's a video of a bomb exploding. Anyway, due to the crater being directly in the middle of the courtyard https://mapy.cz/s/kazakahoha and due to prior warnings from IDF, and shellings by IDF, and the information provided by IL not making much sense, I simply think, just like the doctors in the hospital itself, that this was intentional and done by IDF. Probably meant just as an even more "strongly worded" threat to evacuate, gone wrong. (when previous shelling didn't work) Kinda makes sense to target the bomb in the courtyard in such a scenario instead of at the hospital.
I mean accidents can happen, but anyone thinking that hospital that was repeatedly warned, including by shelling, and refused to evacuate regardless, would just be left alone and had an accident the next day with a bomb falling exactly in the middle of the courtyard, just stretches credulity.
No. But I see effects of several bombings in that area at the time. Why does it matter? IDF is clearly bombing Gaza. Are you saying IDF didn't kill a lot of innocents in Gaza?
Why does one event matter so much to you? I didn't even bring this event up, just expressed my opinion about it.
question is why are you bent on claiming that idf did it, after there were put a lot of evidence that show that it didn't and 500 dead and hundreds under rubble (together with rubble) disappeared ?
I explained why I think it's rather intentional bombing, than an accident. It makes sense to me. That's all. If IDF will not allow independent investigation as asked for by UN, that's where my thinking about this incident will end for me.
I'm more concerned with Israel's overall genocidal aggression in Gaza, rather than individual incidents.
you people still seriously having this discussion ? there are photos/videos now. a dozen of burned cars on parking lot. hospital is in one piece. all walls/roofs/etc are intact.
Thanks for the context! Although you could have made that more clearer in your comment, and you are still leaving me to infer the details from your links. But anyways, I see your point now (weird that your comment was already downvoted).
yeah, i usual tend to leave to people to infer details. this way they can come to their own conclusions
and no, it's not weird. it's common on ycombinator.
in general i find it troubling that statement by hamas taken by everybody at face value, without ask for any proofs (besides 20 sec footage of something burning and 30 sec of doctors taking care of somebody somewhere there was absolutely nothing backing 500 dead and more under rubble). on the other side when idf publishes videos, photos, call intercepts, radar plotes, etc; it's "well, IDF has history of killing people and lying. we will reserve our judgement till we will see this confirmed by independent investigation".
I think conclusion followed by reasoning is more common on HN.
Both sides have a history of "the other side has a history of killing people and lying, we will reserve our judgement". BOTH sides have a history of killing people and lying about it. But then on both sides there are a lot of innocent people being killed regardless.
despite common belief, IDF tends to own mistakes and if there was some kind of breach of rules of engagement - off to jail you go.it doesn't mean that idf doesn't kill anybody. it means that things not white and black as they seen on tv.
there was entertaining thread on reddit a few days ago, where people were searching for "widely documented mass rapes by idf". the only documentation going back to statements from 1969 or so. after this everybody were split into 3 camps:
- very good in coverup (kinda impossible given amount of human rights organizations that document everything)
- idf dehumanizes palestinians so idf is repulsed from idea of rape
I get it, Israel is the better run country in this regard, and the Palestinians barely have a functioning government (and what government they have functions away from Gaza in the west bank), Hamas is basically a terrorist organization. But the Israeli hasn't been acting in very good faith lately, aside from the outlandish accusations leveraged against them, Netanyahu is a very nationalistic/right wing leader, who had to unilaterally reform the judiciary to make it less independent to avoid legal sanction.
Im sorry I'm not frantically searching for all photos and videos right now, I'm just waiting for actual legitimate press / organizations to investigate.
Israel has been bombing Gaza nonstop for the past week. The damage is consistent with a bomb airbursting, not a rocket falling and exploding. No crater. Damage from other rocket attacks is no where near the level of damage in this attack.
Blast looked smaller than a car, nowhere near the payload that was used on the hospital. Also range isn’t payload so not sure why it’s being mentioned.
> Airburst can happen wherever the fuse is designed to activate.
Maybe, but if you are using airburst it doesn't make much sense to activate it at ground level since it defeats the purpose.
And again, the pictures taking during the day light show very little damage - the surrounding buildings are fully intact, so a JDAM just isn't likely, airburst or not.
Seems more like a fuel tank that blew up causing more fire type damage than anything.
just to make sure that we are aligned, what damage are we talking about ? small pothole on the parking lot, few burned cars and 5 clay tiles off the place on the roof ?
Answer what I asked. If you’re going to respond to my question with more questions that avoid answering what I asked, it makes it clear you have no intention of actually discussing this and are only here to post pro Israeli takes.
Strange they decided to go back to this story after first saying they knew nothing about it and then saying that they had warned them to evacuate? Well the IDF have said it so it must be true, no need to look into it. Just quote it verbatim. I too am a well paid journalist.
God damn, there is no way this is anything other than just brazenly obvious insider trading. Completely unethical. Our representatives are complete and utter scumbags.
Needless to say, this should be illegal. I honestly wish we could retroactively imprison them for doing this.
The current state of the U.S. is so damn embarrassing and shameful. I literally cringe when I imagine internationals seeing what we do here.
The senator bought the shares on the 28th; the day the company issued a press release. If you go to the link below, you'll see what looks like it might be insider trading by others, but that occurred on the 23rd, not the 28th. He bought along with everyone else when information was public and he sold to take a quick gain.
If you go to the link the parent provided and set the range for January 3, 2013 through February 3, 2013, you'll see the following:
-The stock traded at around $2.80-$3.00 from January 1-January 22. In other words for almost all of the month.
-On January 23 (Wed) the stock jumps to $3.75, stabilizing to around $3.30 a share by January 25 (Friday). Something is happening
-On January 28 (Monday) the stock gaps up and opens at around $5.00 a share. That day at 7:00 a.m. the company issues a press release that it has had success with a new renal drug:
If you know which direction the released news will move the stock and roughly when the news will be released, you could sit waiting to pull the trigger faster than most people who were not similarly advantaged. It would be silly to do something egregious, but competently leveraging a persistent informational advantage will still lead to significant relative gains in the long term.
That was a biotech stock. They are very volatile. If he held long term he would've done much better. If you search for FDA catalyst dates, you can find dates when drugs are going to be approved or denied, etc. It's like a coin flip.
True, if Begich was a professional trader focused on biotech stocks, that behavior would be entirely normal.
But...the guy is a career politician from Alaska. What are the chances he suddenly decides to roll the dice on an obscure biotech stock 2 days before a positive piece of info drops?
You can see his other disclosures and its all mutual funds and blue chips.
Except Keryx hadn't yet applied for FDA approval of Zerenex, so the action date isn't relevant. On this day in question, they came out of the blue and announced their renal drug had surpassed expectations in a trial, so a U.S. senator buying them randomly the day before is suspect.
Plenty of traders speculate in stocks. These sorts of trades should be reviewed but aren’t really that suspicious. I wouldn’t call this “suspected insider trading” without actual evidence.
The actor in question didn't have a history of speculative trades, just run-of-the-mill long plays. Very unlikely their first prop-bet is such a winner.
He made 20% one time on less than $15,000. He sold when it happened to go up and got lucky. Dodgy stock picker newsletters in biotech make recommendations every day, he’s just as likely to have followed one of their trades than anything else. Unless you produce actual evidence that he has some connection to that company and acted on non public information it’s just speculation. And even worse, it’s damaging to the guy. Frankly it’s ridiculous that people have formed such stirring opinions here based on such limited data and experience.
I think the opinion is that this anomaly should get a small amount of investigation. That is neither stirring nor damaging. If there is smoke, go see if there is a fire. It's not an accusation. It's a desire for a second look.
Interesting! May I ask how many employees did it serve? Did you have to compile large C++ projects and noticed any performance issues? Were the cores shared among different users? (overbooking the number of cores)
We're updating our Teams pricing to better adapt to an agentic world. These changes will start at your next billing renewal after September 15 for both monthly and yearly plans.
From fixed to API-based usage
Today, our Teams plans charge a fixed-cost per request and include the following:
Unlimited Tab and access to all core features 250 Sonnet requests per month Additional usage is billed at $0.08/Sonnet request As models have become more agentic, the cost of individual agent requests has grown increasingly variable. Using the same model, a single difficult prompt can consume an order of magnitude more tokens than a simple one.
Fixed costs per request aren't suited to this new reality. They force an overpricing of simple requests (e.g. a quick syntax question) and an underpricing of difficult ones (e.g. asking the agent to complete an entire PR). API-based pricing will better align both with the underlying LLM costs and with the value the agent delivers.
Under the new pricing, our Teams plan will transition to the following:
Unlimited Tab and access to all features $20 of agent usage per user Ability to purchase additional usage beyond this All usage is consumed at public list API prices of the underlying model + $0.25 per million total tokens. This additional cost covers Cursor's code indexing, indexing model costs, and tool execution with custom models.
This change unifies our billing system. Our individual plans already use API-based usage in production.
What's next
Pricing changes will start at your next billing renewal after September 15. If you need pooled usage or want to explore volume discounts, please reach out to [email protected]. We're grateful for your feedback as we continue evolving Cursor to better support your needs.