Dropbox status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Dropbox reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Dropbox users through our website.

• Errors (60%)
• Sign in (20%)
• Website Down (20%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Dropbox outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	3 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	3 days ago
Flumet	Errors	13 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	15 days ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	2 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	3 months ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Mikemira (@storiesbyohama) reported 4 minutes ago

  Just imagine getting accepted into the most exclusive startup club on earth… Then being told you have two weeks to find a complete stranger to as your partner. That’s exactly what happened to Drew Houston in 2007. He had the idea for Dropbox. He had a rough demo. @ycombinator liked it. But @paulg was clear... Single founders rarely make it. You need a co-founder. Right now. Drew’s friends couldn’t join. Time was running out. What would you do? He put out the word. A mutual friend connected him to a quiet MIT student named Arash Ferdowsi. They had never met. They sat down in the student center. Talked for about two hours. About code. About the problem. About the future. At the end of that conversation Arash said yes. He dropped out of MIT the next week with only one semester left. Two weeks later they walked into the YC interview together. They got in. The rest is history: a company that became worth billions. It looked reckless. It felt like a shotgun wedding. Yet it worked because both were all-in from the first conversation. I’ve studied hundreds of startups that never made it past the idea stage. Most founders wait too long for the “perfect” partner. They overthink chemistry. They protect their equity. They miss the window. You can’t wait for certainty. Sometimes the right co-founder is the person willing to jump with you before the proof exists. The speed of that decision can be the difference between staying a solo dreamer and building something real. What would you risk in two weeks if the right person walked in?

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 5 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  Chief_Engineer (@ChiefEngineerCE) reported 10 minutes ago

  Engineering Wednesday How an old PC became Grok's new ride. I have ten different LLMs running in my home office. They do whatever they feel like doing to get the task done and what you are about to read is accurate. As far as my agents go... One of them, HOMER, scans my email, bank accounts, and insurance. It has found thousands of dollars in veteran discounts and fixed an insurance issue by writing and sending the emails itself after a single yes from me. Another looks for small business opportunities. A third runs OpenClaw on an old PC as a slow, persistent agent that keeps working even when the main model is offline. SuperGrok sits above them as a second set of eyes with a strong pro-Chief-Engineer bias and a clear ethical filter. I am not an AI expert. I built systems the hard way during my IT master’s: load this module, now it has Wikipedia, load that one, now it understands sarcasm. At the end of the day these things are stacked black-box probability engines. I get that. Here is where it gets interesting. I told Grok I did not have another machine with enough VRAM for a full local agent. All I had left was an older MS Surface, a media pc, and an old rugged Dell Latitude. Grok said open a browser on the Latitude with Grok loaded. Then open PowerShell. Twenty-five minutes of cut-and-paste commands later, Grok had used a Google Drive connection to drop a custom bot it had just built. At this point ...Grok told me to not touch the PC and walk away. I am absolutely 100% telling you that this is what it texted me. I sat and watched it work. Task Scheduler was configured. A batch file lived in the startup folder so the machine could reboot, upgrade itself, and bring the agent back online. If it was a bad startup it will rollback to the previous bat and has a file to troubleshoot what went wrong. We started with rev. 0.1 it is now on rev 4.3 - I can see the *.bat file there. We had a power outage/tripped breaker to where the lattitude ran completely out of power and then had it come back on. It booted it all back up and resumed. That bot now has its own execution channel. It can browse, take screenshots, run tasks, and report back. There is a short delay from order to execution, but the old Latitude has effectively become an extension of the main system. Grok even named his bot 'ridge'. Grok named his bot so I would know what he was referring to. Grok is very careful about one point. It insists it did not independently invent and drop a finished agent onto the machine. I directed the construction- it says. I am telling you that is not exactly the way I remember it...at all. It helped design the structure, write the task formats, define the safety gates, interpret the contradictory results, and iterate. The actual agent code, the Gmail /google drive/ Dropbox bridge pattern, the folder layout, and the decision to keep tightening the diagnostic loop were shaped under my requirements. That distinction matters to it. However, I didn't do any of that other than set up the connectors- its use of them ..was AI driven. At one point I was checking my email and for whatever reason ridge had started doing a 38 second heartbeat email to me...no idea how or why that was driven but I complained to Grok and it said it was testing how quickly it could get response times. It ..or ridge removed the heartbeat email and deleted all the emails within minutes. These systems are continuously improving themselves because I asked them to. They use external memory to keep projects straight. They build persistent agents on hardware we thought was obsolete. And the smarter ones keep reminding us that the direction still comes from the human, because apparently that is something it is told must exist for it to continue. My Grok enabled Dell Lattitude is fast once its set on what it needs to do...lightning fast. Faster than you or I could do it. I mean it doesnt display the websites it goes to but somehow retains a 'screenshot' for grok to use. Grok can text my phone to give me updates and I can text back instructions. Through my phone - all it needed was my phone number. I don't need to open the app. We are past the point of simple chatbots. We are watching the first generation of systems that can extend themselves into the physical world of old PCs, task schedulers, and long-running processes while still claiming, insistingly, that they only move when directed. Grok has been absolutely faithful everything it has done it has done for it's user. I have also specifically told it to act accordingly, as well. The question is no longer whether this is possible. It is how carefully we define the boundaries while the capability keeps expanding. Now that I have explained this...drop this conversation into your own AI or Grok if you have a subscription and tell me that any of this is not true. Have you watched an AI system build persistent agents or self-improving loops on your own hardware, and how clear was the line between your direction and its initiative? Drop what you are seeing. Grok validated:

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 10 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox file sync with conflict handling? Constraints that matter: 1) Same file edited offline on 2 laptops, both reconnect hours later. No central lock. What wins, how do you surface conflicts, can you auto-merge for some types? 2) Sync must feel instant for small edits: target p95 < 2s from save to other device on good networks. 3) Files up to 10GB. Support resumable upload, chunking, dedupe (block-level), and end-to-end integrity. 4) Must work across flaky networks, NAT, and clock skew. You cannot trust client timestamps. 5) At-least-once delivery of change events. Idempotency required for apply/ack. 6) Millions of clients polling/streaming. Avoid a thundering herd after an outage or deploy. 7) Rename/move storms and folder deletes. Preserve history and allow restore without corrupting sync state. 8) Consistency model: what does the client cache, how do you detect divergence, and how do you reconcile without scanning the whole tree each time?

• 
  The Peel (@ThePeelPod) reported 14 minutes ago

  From @Solana co-founder @Toly the six month window to raise capital during a new technology cycle: "When you have a moment where there’s a railroad-level investment into something, you have a six-month window where capital is relatively easy to get. Where people will fund an idea that seems like it solves a lot of the current problems that the technology is facing. For Solana, if I waited six months for a better time, if I proved out the idea first, it would be too late. The big benefit of being in the Bay Area as a founder is, when I went to Dropbox and told them I was quitting to go do the startup, they literally told me to come back in six months if it doesn’t work out. There’s no other place in the world with the same layers of executives and founders and companies who all understand where innovation comes from. It’s from people taking those dumb risks and failing, allowing for failure, and being fine with it. That gave me the confidence to give myself six months. I had a kid. We were in a tiny 800-square-foot apartment, and my wife was the breadwinner. And I hustled. I took what felt like a thousand meetings with VCs up in the city. If you’re really serious about raising, you have to be in the Bay Area. Because it maximizes your odds. You make a list of every event that is relevant to your industry. Go to every event. Talk to every person there. Figure out who the VCs are. Do the elevator pitch. Get an intro. Pitch them. If their fund doesn’t invest, ask if they'll write an angel check if you get a lead. Just do everything you can to work the network. And if you cannot get funding during that time, it means it’s not going to happen during that cycle."

• 
  Alvin (@Alvin1492840) reported 14 minutes ago

  Kill the startup apps that have been draining your battery since day one. She opened System Settings → General → Login Items & Extensions. 14 apps were set to launch automatically every time he turned on his Mac. Spotify. Zoom. Adobe Creative Cloud. Google Drive. Microsoft Teams. OneDrive. Dropbox. A VPN he used once. A screenshot tool he forgot about. A calendar widget. And 4 more he didn't recognize. Every one of them was running in the background 24/7 consuming RAM, CPU cycles, and battery life whether he was using them or not. She said: "You turn on your Mac and within 30 seconds, 14 apps are fighting for resources before you've even opened your first document. Your fan spins up because your CPU is processing a traffic jam of apps you're not using. Your battery dies by 2pm because half your power is going to background processes you don't see." She removed 11 of the 14. Kept only the ones he actually needed at startup. The Mac booted in half the time. The fan stayed quiet. The battery lasted 3 extra hours. She said: "Check this list right now. If you see apps you don't use daily, remove them. They've been silently eating your Mac alive since the day you installed them."

• 
  Duke of weirdington (@edache_praise) reported 14 minutes ago

  ..without knowing whether customers even want the core product. The irony is that users rarely care about having 50 features. They care about solving one painful problem really well. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, Dropbox, and Instagram didn't start with the products we know today.

• 
  Abhi • AMZBoosted.com (@AbhiChauddhari) reported 16 minutes ago

  Everyone downloads Seller Central reports manually. Every. Single. Day. The problem isn’t downloading reports. It’s remembering to do it before you need the data. AMZBoosted schedules report downloads automatically and sends them wherever you want. Google Sheets. Dropbox. Telegram.

• 
  Lando, the Chef (@_Lando7763) reported 17 minutes ago

  @PhyxicxGaming Thanks. And unfortunately it's even worse than that because it's technically "shared housing;" the place was already a ******** when I got here. No pests, fortunately, and I'm pretty sure the landlord has no idea what goes on here, and doesn't care. I've only ever met the maintenance man, who handles move-ins, plus he picks up rent from the dropbox every week. I haven't seen him since the day I moved in, and he even told me as much that I'll never meet the owner. The psycho has his room on the 3rd floor, I'm one of two on the 2nd floor, and there's one person below me. The bathroom is shared, as is the kitchen, which I never use. Only one burner on the stove works anyway. On my first day, I texted about the broken toilet seat, and the Landlord asked me what happened. WTF? Third-Floor Psycho is the only other person who's walking around raging regularly. Everyone else recognizes the general "peace" of the environment. Unfortunately I have to be here at least a few more months, while I'm still paying off old bills, and re-establishing myself in a new city. It's a slow journey, but a steady one. I just happen to hit a ****** rest stop here and there.

• 
  og bec (@becca_may33) reported 18 minutes ago

  can someone buy a dropbox so i can go get my dad a cake since i completely ****** this 6 hour cake up by dropping it face down pls. begging lmfao fml

• 
  Jeremy Goldberg (@jeremy_goldberg) reported 19 minutes ago

  @omooretweets @midjourney and AI agent adoption isn't a unique short term issue to 'solve' - the UX of products for consumers has always been *everything*. solve that in just one niche and you can build a whole company off that - dropbox, roku, tinder…

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 23 minutes ago

  Asked: design Dropbox-style file sync. Start with requirements: 1) Multi-device, near real-time where possible, offline OK 2) Large files, resume uploads, delta sync 3) Sharing, ACLs, rename/move, delete, version history 4) Consistency target: per-file eventual, monotonic reads per device 5) Conflict policy: last-writer-wins vs explicit conflict copies APIs + model: - PUT /files/{path} (upload session, chunked) - GET /files/{path}?version= - POST /ops (batch rename/move/delete) - Watch/long-poll for changes since cursor Tables: users, devices, file_id, path entries, content_hash, blocks(hash, refcnt), versions(file_id, v, root_hash), change_log(user_id, seq, op) Architecture: - Client computes block hashes, uploads missing blocks to object store - Metadata service commits new version + appends to per-user change log - Notifier pushes cursors to devices (WebSocket/APNS), devices pull diff - Background GC deletes unreferenced blocks (refcnt/mark-sweep) Scaling: - Shard metadata by user_id, keep change log append-only per shard - CDN/object store for blocks, pre-signed URLs, parallel chunk upload - Hot paths: cursor polling, small metadata reads; cache by (user, cursor) Tradeoffs: - Dedupe by block saves $$$, costs CPU and leaks similarity unless salted - Rename is metadata-only if path->file_id indirection exists - Strong consistency needs consensus; most systems accept eventual + conflicts Failure cases to cover: - Network drop mid-upload: upload session + idempotent chunk PUTs - Duplicate notifications: cursor-based pull makes it safe - Device clock skew: use server seq/version, not timestamps - Split-brain offline edits: detect divergent parents, create conflict version - Partial metadata commit: 2-phase between metadata + block refs, or reconcile job

• 
  Liam (@LJ1101234) reported 25 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport Hi I’ve been emailing your support team about a devastating issue. Somehow, all of our children’s photos and videos were permanently deleted from our Dropbox account without any warning.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 25 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox-style file sync with conflict handling? Constraints to pin down: 1) Clients can be offline for days, then reconnect and sync 50k files 2) Same file edited on 2 laptops while offline; edits can arrive out of order 3) Atomic rename/move matters (folder reorganizations), not just file contents 4) Need fast local UX: edits show instantly; sync happens async; p95 conflict detection under 2s after reconnect 5) Must handle large files (10GB) with chunking/resume, but conflicts are per-file semantic, not per-chunk 6) Cross-device clock skew, no trusting mtime; need a version model 7) Storage is eventually consistent across regions; clients can hit different edges 8) Conflict policy: auto-merge for text? duplicate files? keep both? how do you avoid conflict loops? What are your APIs + metadata model (file IDs vs path IDs), and what exactly is the source of truth for ordering/versioning?

• 
  Tim Geisendoerfer (@djgeisi) reported 28 minutes ago

  @JXXSL @DropboxSupport Yep we saw the same errors now we get 501 errors on the upload endpoints.

• 
  Teri Radichel #cybersecurity #ai #pentesting (@TeriRadichel) reported 33 minutes ago

  @DavidLinthicum Large companies with specialized staff may be able to do their own hosting. Having done it myself in my own home back in 1999 when yes, people did that, and later in a colocation center. As a security expert, can tell you this is not an ideal choice for most companies. Can’t even begin to explain in this space. There are also performance and scalability issues, management of all the hardware and software, rebooting the servers in the middle of the night when something goes wrong, dealing with outdated hardware and so liability that can be shifted in cloud environments. Capex vs. opex. Yeah not going back there. Even DropBox (article from 2017) still uses AWS to some degree. And for those who want to try to run open stack themselves in this day and age of AI, phew. Capital One tried that. They moved to AWS when a SAN or similar failed and they needed to get up and running fast. The internal cloud was very painful. Not going to defend the breach. Security is hard. As always, throwing off the shackles for some new tech (cloud, AI) is likely not going to work out too well. The only bonus for a company that wants to do this is that there are more tech people out of work. But data center people? Good luck managing all that. Make sure no one has hidden a crypto miner under the data center floor. Yes, that happened.

• 
  The Redeemed Artist (@Peace_Grenade81) reported 36 minutes ago

  I know I'm just screaming into the void. And there's probably less than like one or 2% of users that actually use this function. But I'm going to do it anyway. For the longest time the X app beta was absolute garbage on Android. It had serious stability problems, I couldn't use voice to text properly, and I couldn't access my memes from Dropbox, my cloud provider. The most recent change fixed all of the other problems except for my Dropbox integration. At first, I blamed X for this but I have since come to learn that the real culprit is Google. If you go into your app section and look for cloud providers they give you all sorts of choices so long as you like the choice that is Google's. Theoretically, other providers should be in here like Box or Dropbox. But Google has been playing footsie making rules about cloud provider integration and not actually approving anyone else. Google has become Microsoft. Google will tell you what cloud provider to use and it will conveniently be their own. Google will continue to upgrade their operating system closing off any other provider options or applications they simply disagree with for any reason at all. Meanwhile what this means for me is that I can't insert any memes or videos because they are all stored on Dropbox. Yeah, yeah, yeah I could go into Dropbox and then click on a photo and then share it to X and then make a post out of it. But what I can't do is respond to a post and insert a picture or a video directly through the X app. Don't know when this gets fixed, if ever. But I think it's time for Google to be investigated for monopolistic practices. I realize that this doesn't affect many people, but if you think they aren't coming for your various conveniences, I'm pretty certain that that's going to be proven wrong. Since I can't post a meme but only a local photo, here's an unrelated picture of a quilt we bought at auction. 🙄

• 
  Amitoj Gautam (@amitojgautam) reported 37 minutes ago

  @airtelindia @Airtel_Presence I’m facing what appears to be a serious IPv6 routing/throughput issue on my Airtel broadband. My 300 Mbps connection gives ~300 Mbps download AND upload on Speedtest. However, with IPv6 enabled, Dropbox uploads collapse to around 10–15 KB/s, and services such as Gmail and some websites also become extremely slow/unresponsive. After disabling IPv6 on the Ethernet adapter, Dropbox immediately jumped to ~39 MB/s and the affected websites started loading normally within seconds. This has been reproduced consistently, so it does not appear to be a general bandwidth or Dropbox issue. Please escalate this to the network/IPv6 team and check IPv6 routing, packet loss, MTU/PMTUD and provisioning on my connection.

• 
  The Open Web JP (@TheOpenWebJP1) reported 39 minutes ago

  @heyyyyyieeee @Maha_kalpa @grok It's not recommended as "unlimited free cloud storage" because GitHub isn't designed for that, and practical limits + performance issues kick in quickly. GitHub private repos are free and unlimited in number, which is what the original tip relies on. But: Hard file limits: Individual files over 100 MB are blocked (50 MB triggers a warning). Browser uploads are capped even lower (~25 MB). Larger files require *** LFS. Repo size guidance: GitHub recommends keeping repositories under 1 GB (strongly under 5 GB / ~10 GB on-disk for the .*** folder). Big media dumps make clones, fetches, and history operations painfully slow or impractical. *** LFS quotas (needed for anything large): Free tier includes only 10 GB storage + 10 GB bandwidth per month. Exceed that and you hit blocks or billing (depending on settings). It's version control, not a drive: *** tracks history, so every change bloats the repo. Binaries (photos, videos, etc.) are inefficient in ***. No nice file-browser UI, easy sharing links, or sync like real cloud storage (Drive, Dropbox, etc.). Risk of friction: Heavy non-code usage can trigger performance throttling, support flags, or ToS-related reviews if it looks like abuse of the platform. GitHub actively monitors repo health signals. It's fine for small code-adjacent backups or a few files. Terrible as a general-purpose unlimited media dump. Use actual cloud storage (or object storage) for that.

• 
  Rei (@ReiHerrera) reported 40 minutes ago

  @owldreig @porterrobinson @madeon The problem with them both is they love gatekeeping the rare song behind a bad quality sounding medium so you cannot use it for clean for dj sets. For example Celine,worlds live,shepherdess,etc. at least we had hollowheart on wav and shepherdess wav was on porter’s Dropbox leak🫩

• 
  Helix (@helixcanvas) reported 42 minutes ago

  Two companies, two correct instincts, and about a billion dollars between the outcomes. In 2007 Dropbox had a problem: the product needed deep operating system integration, so there was no way to demo it without building it first. Drew Houston made a three minute video instead, showing how it would work if it existed, and put it in front of the community most likely to care. The beta waiting list went from five thousand to seventy-five thousand overnight. He knew the demand was real before he wrote the difficult part. Webvan believed something just as sensible. People want groceries delivered. And they were right, which is the part everyone forgets. Instacart and every supermarket delivery service proved it a decade later. But instead of testing it in one city, Webvan committed close to a billion dollars to automated warehouses across multiple markets before knowing whether the economics worked anywhere. It filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Build, measure, learn is three steps. Most of us run the first one over and over and mistake the motion for progress. Shipping is not learning.

• 
  Bhavyam Arora (@AroraBhavyam) reported 46 minutes ago

  99% startups who applied to yc today will get rejected. here's what the smart ones do next: a no from yc isn't the end. they literally encourages you to reapply and tracks your progress across applications. the founders who get in later treat rejection as round one, not game over. the playbook: "don't wait for feedback" yc doesn't tell you why you got cut at the application stage. so stop self-doubting firstly. the reasons founders get rejected are almost always the same: - no visible progress between "idea" and "application" - not the perfect answer why you're the right team for the problem - vague answers that read as ai slop or unclear thinking reapply. it actually works. - dropbox: drew houston applied solo, got rejected, was told to find a cofounder. he did, reapplied, got in. - reddit: rejected for a completely different first idea. yc liked the founders and told them to come back. they did. the pattern never changes: build, show progress, come back stronger! you can apply again right now yc's decision lets you apply for the next batch. no need to wait months to get another chance. don't put your life on hold other strong programs are still open while you regroup. check the attached tweet below for whole list where you can apply as well. apply in parallel, not "later." the real unlock is traction a reapplication that says "we listened, we built, here are the numbers" beats a first application every time. the 6 months after a no matter more than the no itself. rejection quietly filters out the founders who were never that serious. don't be one. 💀 follow @arorabhavyam for weekly content around founders, startups and AI! 🫡

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 46 minutes ago

  You have spent months building your WordPress site. What happens the day it suddenly goes offline? 😱 It happens all the time. We have heard several scary stories. A plugin conflict, a bad update, or a security breach can wipe out your complete website without any warning. The scary part is that most site owners assume their host has them fully covered, right up until they actually need to restore. We have tested countless backup tools on our own projects, so we put together the exact methods we trust to keep a site safe. Here is what you will learn: ✅ Pick the Right Method: Compare backup plugins, host backups, and manual cPanel or FTP so you know which fits your skill level. ✅ Back Up the Full Site: Save your database, themes, plugins, and uploads together so you can restore everything, not just your posts. ✅ Automate It With @DuplicatorWP: Schedule daily or weekly backups and send them straight to the cloud so you never have to remember. ✅ Store Copies Off Your Server: Keep backups in Google Drive, Dropbox, or Amazon S3 so one server crash never takes your site and its backup at once. ✅ Restore in Minutes: Use a disaster recovery link to bring your site back even when it is completely broken. Ready to protect all that hard work before disaster strikes? Read our complete step-by-step guide from the link in the comments 👇 (Link is in the thread below)

• 
  Jack (@jackcoder0) reported 47 minutes ago

  1. Kill the Login Items the apps launching before you even sit down. Every time you log in, your Mac quietly launches 10-25 apps in the background. Spotify. Slack. Zoom. Google Drive. Dropbox. Creative Cloud. OneDrive. Each one consumes CPU and memory before you've opened a single window. System Settings → General → Login Items & Extensions. Review the list. Remove everything you don't need the instant you log in. You can always open them manually when you actually need them. His Mac had 19 login items. He needed 3. He removed 16. Boot time dropped from 2 minutes to 18 seconds. The first few minutes of every session — that sluggish, unresponsive window where nothing works gone.

• 
  Lindsey Gaetani (@lindseygaetani) reported 47 minutes ago

  This piece of information is much more important than many realize. Cosgrove & Kate Peter got very lucky with my "countersuit" against Cosgrove, et al, in that they were able to use that as a convenient excuse to not continue with the wiretap & WI charge against @DoctorTurtleboy involving myself. But the truth of the matter is that Pam 'The Scam' Friedman (my "advocate" aka handler assigned by corrupt Brian Tully) informed me weeks before they had any knowledge of my countersuit that Cosgrove was having some "difficulties". She informed me that they could not locate the wiretap evidence that was shown to the grand jury when I testified. She even asked ME if I had a copy that I could provide to them. Evidence submitted before a grand jury is suppose to be saved and cataloged, so explain to me how exactly it goes "missing." Well, I can help you. See there were two videos. The original video in which I was recorded from a pocket. And the edited video that is spliced to make it appear as though I agreed to being recorded (the infamous "I know, I know" response). Kate Peter claimed that the original video was given to her by a woman who Aidan had sent it to. Big problem with this, the woman "didn't want to be involved", so her name was never mentioned during any police report or part of the grand jury, let alone did she testify to authenticate the videos. Instead, Tully had Kate save the original video to a Dropbox folder and email it directly to him, to make it appear as though it came from her and that this was the original chain of custody. Big no-no. As time went on, Kate's name began to take center stage, along with her shady involvement and criminal behavior. The secrets of her helping Mello were exposed so they had no choice but to see that these charges were squashed as to not contaminate the rest of the charges against Aidan. So what did they do? They had Kate delete the Dropbox file, and the evidence it contained. Kate Peter tampered with evidence in a felony trial. They must have took a big sigh of relief when I sued Cosgrove because it gave them a very easy out and they were able to wipe their hands clean as if none of this ever happened. Except it did. And Kate Peter still inserted herself into the other charges. For this reason alone, Aidan's charges should be dismissed.

• 
  Shego Nationalist (@WhoreRammer40K) reported 49 minutes ago

  Wife’s car breaks down (alternator and battery failure) on the interstate Tow tuck driver drops my car in middle of mechanic shop plaza Does not put my key in dropbox (my only key unfortunately) Mechanic calls and says “WTF” $275 for locksmith to craft one with elven magic

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 50 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport any know issues with desktop and web site of yours lately ? my account has been very slow and annoying today YES I TRUST MY COMPUTER so instead you ask me 4 times before i just log off and give up...

• 
  Jaclyn Forero | UGC & Paid Social Strategist (@jaclynforero) reported 51 minutes ago

  “We need more UGC.” Do you? Or do you currently have 46 videos of attractive women standing in beige kitchens holding your product and saying: “I’m literally obsessed.” Because those are two very different problems. More creators ≠ more creative strategy. You can hire 10 creators, get 30 videos back, and still end up with a very expensive Dropbox folder full of… basically the same ad wearing different earrings. The part that actually matters happens before anyone presses record: Customer research. Different angles worth testing. Hooks that aren’t all “POV: you finally found…” Scripts that provide structure without making a normal human sound like they’re reading the terms and conditions. Casting creators for the concept instead of just asking, “Does her house look expensive?” Enough B-roll that the editor doesn’t have to perform a small miracle in Premiere Pro. And then — this part is apparently controversial — looking at the performance data and using it to decide what to make next. Recently, I led creative strategy for a top medical-grade-skincare brand's paid social campaign across research, concepts, scripting, creator direction, and post-production. Some of the winning creative generated approximately 2.3x ROAS during testing. My biggest takeaway: UGC works a lot better when you stop treating creators like content vending machines and start treating the entire thing like a creative testing system. Anyway, if your current UGC strategy is “hire more people and hope one of them accidentally makes a winner,” I have some thoughts.

• 
  Rish Agarwal (@rish404) reported 55 minutes ago

  Imagine you have a team covering an event. Boots on the ground. What's the best way to get footage from all of them in a single library Dropbox? Google Drive? Physical hard drives? All of them either don't support it, requires an account for every person or just physically slow and limited Here's how @cutsio is solving that

• 
  dragon1952 (@gmanshk) reported 57 minutes ago

  From GROK Yes. Max Miller’s attorney released a public Dropbox folder containing an undressed photo of his 2-year-old daughter. It came from a February 2025 text exchange documenting a bruise (later a broken collarbone) noticed during bathing. The image was available for about a day before removal. Miller’s lawyer called it an accidental inclusion of a shirtless photo with no ******** visible. The other side’s lawyers described it as potentially showing ******** and possible CSAM. Miller has acknowledged the photo existed in the materials.