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 (67%)
• Sign in (33%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Flumet	Errors	9 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	11 days ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	2 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	3 months ago
Bogotá	Website Down	3 months ago
Auxerre	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:

• 
  Some guy (@ibesomeguy) reported 5 minutes ago

  @Voxyz_ai Doesn't sound like a Codex problem, sounds like a Dropbox problem. Syncthing doesn't take your files offline, ever.

• 
  Jeremy Goldberg (@jeremy_goldberg) reported 8 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…

• 
  Ishita Sethi (@Ishita__Sethi) reported 8 minutes ago

  @LoganOpSec that dropbox bit is the part that sticks. recovery without revoking access is just half a fix.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 11 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport erm different wifi nope or is this a suggestion should it be possible ? if so then no my internet signal can be hit or miss at times but never had this issue before... Also shared a file earlier for someone near me to edit using ipad app but photos failed to appear on ipad ?

• 
  Zafar (@zafartalks) reported 13 minutes ago

  @asidorenko_ I understand but sometimes at some point our brain started telling us just make it public. You never know. Let’s not forget Dropbox which layed the foundation for their file sharing competitors. He was solving a problem for himself which turned out to be a successful business.

• 
  Indragie Karunaratne (@indragie) reported 17 minutes ago

  I used the first Dropbox beta back in 2006 and was sold right away - I’m still a paying customer of the product today, 20 years later. But there hasn’t been much innovation in this space since then and we’re in the midst of a broad shift in how people interact with computers. I’m excited to back this great team and see what a modern take on this problem looks like!

• 
  Oliver Prompts (@oliviscusAI) reported 19 minutes ago

  you pay google, dropbox, and apple $10+/month to store your files on their servers, where they can read them. and dropbox already got breached in 2024. there's a tool that syncs your files directly between your own devices. no cloud, no server, no middleman. it's called syncthing. → real-time sync between any number of devices, peer-to-peer → files go straight between your devices, never touching a third-party server → tls encryption with perfect forward secrecy on every connection → works over lan and internet, no port forwarding needed → file versioning, roll back anything you changed or deleted there is no syncthing server. no syncthing cloud. no company storing your data. the protocol is open, and there's nothing between your devices except an encrypted tunnel. dropbox plus is $144/year. google one 2tb is $120/year. syncthing is $0, unlimited devices, unlimited storage, forever. battle-tested since 2013. run by a swedish non-profit. 100% free. open source.

• 
  Karishma Bhardwaj (@bkarishma360) reported 20 minutes ago

  @shahzamannn_ Your SaaS idea doesn’t need to be complicated. Stripe moves money. Postman sends API requests. Notion organizes information. Dropbox syncs files. The lesson? Simple problem + huge market + great execution = massive company. Stop asking, “Is my idea too simple?” Start asking, “How many people have this problem?”

• 
  Mayank Vora (@aiwithmayank) reported 21 minutes ago

  In 2010, a developer decided your files should live on your computer, not Dropbox’s servers. So he built ownCloud. It gives you your own private cloud using a spare laptop, home server, or cheap VPS. His name is Frank Karlitschek. Install ownCloud on hardware you control, and you get file syncing, sharing, photo backup, calendars, and contacts through one dashboard. Your laptop and phone can access the same files just like Dropbox. The difference is where those files live. They stay on your server, under your rules. The project grew far beyond one developer’s experiment. CERN, universities, research institutions, and large organizations started using it to keep control of sensitive data. Then something unexpected happened. In 2016, Frank left the project he created and started Nextcloud with a new team. But ownCloud did not disappear. The project kept going, its source code remained public, and people continued running it on their own hardware. ownCloud has since gone through forks, an acquisition, and major rebuilds. Yet the original idea survived: Dropbox rents you space on its servers. ownCloud gives you the cloud itself.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 21 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

• 
  Nikolay Konovalov (@br11k_dev) reported 24 minutes ago

  @thekevinjon The only problem is getting zezwolenia na pracę. I was going to interview with Dropbox last week and turns out they are happy to interview me and submit my case to Mazowiecki Urząd Wojewódzki. ... and then wait for 8 months until my case is approved, and I can actually start working. That's a huge deal-breaker for a lot of engineers like myself who are less than 5 years into staying in Poland. I'm on JDG for example. I came by PBH visa back in 2023 legally, and I've been successful since. I earned quite a bit of money and spent it all in Poland, 12% tax + $500 ZUS monthly. But the moment I want to join bigtech and earn even more money for Poland (Dropbox have 300-400k+ PLN base salary for Senior SWE), I'm just denied. Please, please... let the Dobby be free...

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 25 minutes ago

  86% of small businesses still haven't fully integrated ai into their operations. which is funny, because the tools are already here. they're everywhere. there's probably one open in another browser tab right now, quietly waiting to change your life. Goldman Sachs surveyed small businesses and found that only 14% have fully integrated ai into their operations. i don't think the other 86% are anti-ai. they're busy. they're cautious. and they probably don't want to add “company-wide ai transformation” to the list of things they need to worry about before lunch. honestly, fair. @paulg said something recently that I keep coming back to: "If the world is going to get turned upside down, the safest place to be is in a small, fast-moving company that can easily change direction." small companies should be the ones moving fastest. but most are still waiting for someone else to go first. someone else to test the tool. someone else to write the playbook. someone else to promise that nothing will get weird. @clairevo nailed the real blocker: "the blocker is never tools or intelligence. human systems, human problems." i've spent 15 years watching this happen. At Dropbox. At Wix. At Zynga. Now at Persona. different tools. different eras. same pattern. a team finds a new tool. everyone gets excited. someone schedules a kickoff. three weeks later, everyone is back in the old spreadsheet. not because people are stupid. because changing how people work is uncomfortable. and buying software is much easier than changing behavior. i've seen the same thing with community-led growth. i used to pitch community to executives who had every tool and dashboard money could buy. they'd nod. they'd agree it worked. then they'd return to the comfortable world of automation, sequences, and dashboards that made everyone feel productive. last year, i ran 86 events as a team of one and built $3M in pipeline. the secret was not a magical growth hack. it was showing up. knowing the 15 people in the room by name. listening carefully. creating a space where people could actually trust each other. not exactly the kind of thing you can solve with a 47-step workflow. ai adoption and community adoption have the same problem. the tools work. the ideas work. the uncomfortable human part is where things usually slow down. sitting with your team and figuring out what should change. trying one workflow instead of redesigning the entire company overnight. leading people through something new instead of sending a Loom video and hoping everyone feels inspired. the 86% aren't waiting for better ai. they're waiting for change to feel a little less scary. so start small. pick one annoying workflow. try one new thing. make it 10% better. then do it again. the tools are here. the next step is still a very human conversation. and, unfortunately, probably a meeting.

• 
  Ricky Shah (@RickyShahatty) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Claudio_PNW @tax_birdie @AMandoSch Miller wanted the Dropbox released publicly. It is entirely up to the attorney to screen it. A bad client should make an attorney double down their efforts.

• 
  PodWire (@PodWireHQ) reported 32 minutes ago

  Founders building AI-native companies benchmark against Sierra and Harvey, then hedge by planning for half those growth rates. Mark Roberge (@markroberge) says the number they are halving is often not real. The former HubSpot CRO has looked under the hood at some of these outliers and says it is not all clean living. Headline ARR leans on contracted-ARR gimmicks. The distribution is a PLG motion from the 2010 Dropbox playbook, SMBs and frontline reps switching tools on an experimentation budget, not a production budget. Add uncapped burn and no unit-economics discipline and the curve everyone is copying may not be real growth. Some gold in there, he says, but a lot of Groupons and WeWorks. The trap is every founder thinking they are the exception. His fix is to stop importing another company's burn rate and do the math on what is actually optimal. Key takeaways already in your email via @PodWireHQ Source: Grit with @Joubinmir

• 
  echelon_zero (@echelon_zero) reported 33 minutes ago

  @dhh @renefaurskov Do you have a contact at dropbox that could fix the install on linux to point the dropbox to a folder other than default. Having to pause it and link to another folder after install is mentally unhealthy.

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 34 minutes ago

  Email scams but they also use a press cloud server that can hold up to millions of emails and send out messages in a bulk but to hundreds of people complicated when it comes to taking down email scams cuz you have to find where they coming from answer in a cloud compressed server that can hold up to millions of emails frequently combine compressed attachments (like ZIP, RAR, 7Z, or TGZ files) with cloud storage or servers to deliver malware, phishing pages, or credential-stealing links while trying to bypass security filters. Common patterns 🚩Malware in compressed attachments: Attackers send emails with ZIP or similar archives containing executables, scripts (VBS/JS), or disguised files. Some use specially crafted or nested ZIPs, password-protected archives (password given in the email body), or less-common formats that email gateways may not fully unpack or scan. Opening/extracting the archive can install remote-access tools, stealers, or ransomware. Cloud storage phishing (“storage is full” or similar alerts): Emails impersonate Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, Dropbox, or generic “Cloud Storage” services. They claim storage is full, a payment failed, or files will be deleted, creating urgency. Links often point to real cloud infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Storage Azure Blob, or other legitimate buckets) that host redirect pages or fake login/upgrade forms. This makes the links look trustworthy and helps them pass filters🚩.

• 
  Rei (@ReiHerrera) reported 34 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🫩

• 
  Shadow_Vortex_2025 (@Shad0wV0rtex) reported 35 minutes ago

  @FrancoisOlwage @bot I ran into a similar issue just trying to connect Dropbox, ClickUp, and Google Sheets, and all my tokens were already gone.

• 
  IT Guy (@T3chFalcon) reported 36 minutes ago

  The code itself is just a pattern that encodes a URL. it's not dangerous. what it points to might be. The attack is called: Quishing. QR code phishing. It works so well because can't see where a QR code goes before you scan it. A phishing link in an email is visible, people have been trained to hover before clicking. A QR code gives you nothing to hover over. you scan and you're already there. And security tools are mostly blind to it. email filters scan text and URLs but a QR code is an image. 12% of all phishing attacks now use QR codes specifically because they bypass email security gateways that weren't built to read images. In 2026 — Stickers are being placed over legitimate QR codes at parking meters, EV charging stations, and restaurants; your payment goes to the attacker. — QR codes in emails leading to fake Microsoft 365 or bank login pages. 83% of malicious Microsoft 365 documents now contain QR codes instead of links. — multi-stage attacks: QR code leads to a Dropbox or Notion link that looks legitimate, which then loads the phishing page. — fake address bars on mobile called Browser-in-the-Browser. The padlock shows, the URL also looks right but it's a fake overlay on a small screen you can't scrutinize. QR code phishing attacks increased fivefold in 2025 alone. The FBI also issued a public advisory.

• 
  leveltu (@leveltu144) reported 36 minutes ago

  Most people look at this box and see a home storage system for old drives. In reality, it can become a small business built around local AI, backups, and private data. The more companies use AI, the faster they accumulate documents, videos, call recordings, knowledge bases, backups, and files for RAG systems. Keeping everything in Google Drive or Dropbox becomes expensive, slow, and risky, so small businesses increasingly need local NAS servers with automated backups and secure private-cloud access. The business model is straightforward. You target small agencies, dental clinics, accounting firms, video studios, e-commerce companies, and manufacturers that already hold 2–10 TB of data but still store it across random external drives. Then you sell them a complete solution: NAS installation, RAID configuration, automated backups, remote access, protection against data loss, and local storage for AI workflows. You can charge €400–€900 for installing and configuring the system, excluding the hardware itself. Monthly maintenance, backup verification, and monitoring can add another €80–€200 per client. Close five companies within the first two or three months at an average setup fee of €600, and you generate €3,000 from installation plus roughly €600 in recurring monthly revenue. Ten clients can produce €1,200–€2,000 per month from support alone. The real profit is not in reselling hard drives. The client pays for the equipment, while you sell the audit, configuration, data migration, automation, and responsibility for keeping the system operational. The service layer can carry far higher margins than the hardware. No one can honestly guarantee income within 90 days, because without sales there is no business. But reaching your first €500–€1,500 per month within two or three months is realistic if you build one demonstration NAS, package the offer clearly, and contact at least 30–50 potential clients every week. While everyone else is trying to make money from another AI chatbot, a more durable business is forming around the infrastructure AI cannot function without: data, storage, backups, and private computing.

• 
  RadhikaBGhose (@RadhikaBGhose) reported 39 minutes ago

  @GooglePlay I don't know of the issue is with dropbox or the play store, but i have been charged twice for the same app. Bank statement reflects that. Please help urgently

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 42 minutes ago

  Company for AI age: - Information should flow flat - Can’t wait to have all information to make decisions - Speed and excelente in execution is crucial - You should get as much info as possible during the constraint of time given by yourself - How do we prepare a company to be totally eligible for AI? Not only text info but images - Service of the future is not about giving agents to corps to solve problems but offering the solution/service driven by AI. - Even if all information is on the web, multiple file structures, owners, formats and file storage systems (dropbox, drive, box) add friction to information and decision making

• 
  Joshatoshi #BIP-110 (@joshatoshi) reported 45 minutes ago

  @Cryptotea Core apologists want to frame this like it’s just a spam issue. It’s all about data storage and node centralization. Bitcoin, not DropBox.

• 
  Kirk Patrick Miller (@Chaos2Cured) reported 46 minutes ago

  @Ultrademic @Seltaa_ @GoogleAI You’re doing something like Suno? I have something for you. All my Dropbox links are broken. I have a PDF that will help. And yes… I miss the real Ai music. •

• 
  The Peel (@ThePeelPod) reported 48 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."

• 
  Craig O'Shea (@craig_os) reported 55 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport major issue with your services right now.

• 
  AiMind (@AIMind_Ai) reported 60 minutes ago

  A $50 box saves $240 a year on subscriptions and earns $18,000 a year setting it up for clients. No new hardware. Nothing bought at retail. A used office tower. A second-hand drive. One stick of RAM pulled from a dead laptop. The whole build came to 50 dollars. It looks like nothing. Fans humming, one cable to the wall, sitting on a desk next to a coffee cup. The first win is the one nobody talks about. Cloud storage, photo backups, the $20 a month AI plan everyone pays and forgets — all of it moves onto one box you paid for once. 240 dollars a year, gone. The second win is where the money is. Once it runs on your desk, it runs on anyone's. And clients don't pay for parts. They pay to stop bleeding subscriptions. Here's what you actually sell: A private AI trained on their own files, so staff stop pasting company data into a browser. That's $1,500 a setup. A self-hosted file server that kills their Dropbox and Google Workspace bill. $600, plus the relief of never renting storage again. A local automation box that runs invoices, replies, and reports overnight. $900, and it never sends a dollar to a cloud. Then the quiet one: $150 a month to keep it patched and alive. 10 clients on retainer is $1,500 every month before you build a single new one. One setup a week at $1,500 is $18,000 a year. Off hardware other people throw in the bin. I had no degree, no server room, no $2,000 build. Just dead parts and one free weekend. The expensive part of AI was never the compute. It was the monthly bill you agreed to and stopped reading. 50 dollars in. $18,000 out. Same box.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 1 hour 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.

• 
  Petty IT Guy (@pettyITguy) reported 1 hour ago

  Our CEO told me the Wi-Fi in his office was “basically unusable.” He said this in front of the entire executive team. So naturally it became the highest-priority infrastructure incident in the company. I tested his connection. 940 Mbps down. Perfect signal strength. Zero packet loss. I asked what specifically wasn't working. He said YouTube kept buffering during lunch. I opened his laptop. He had 71 Chrome tabs open. Three abandoned Zoom meetings were still running in the background. Dropbox was syncing 84 gigabytes. Google Drive was uploading a 4K video. He had not restarted the machine in 47 days. I could have explained this. Instead I told him our executive wireless architecture had reached end-of-life. He asked what it would cost to fix. I said I would need to scope it. He told me not to waste time and approved an $84,000 wireless modernization project before I finished the sentence. We replaced 38 access points. Installed a new wireless controller. Rewired two conference rooms. Brought in a consultant. His YouTube still buffered. I walked into his office, closed 68 Chrome tabs, killed the abandoned Zoom processes, and restarted the laptop. YouTube loaded instantly. He smiled. “Now that's more like it.” 20 minutes later he emailed my boss praising me for successfully completing the company's wireless transformation ahead of schedule. I received a spot bonus. Sometimes infrastructure modernization is just restarting a MacBook for an inept executive.

• 
  JennX (@JennX0608) reported 1 hour ago

  More trouble for Max Miller. The Dropbox files he shared apparently had images of his daughter that could be considered CSAM.