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	17 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	17 days ago
Flumet	Errors	27 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	29 days ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	3 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	4 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:

• 
  Ishita Sethi (@Ishita__Sethi) reported 5 minutes ago

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

• 
  RVCrypto (@RvCrypto) reported 8 minutes ago

  Every once in a while I have one of those moments as an investor where everything just clicks. I had that moment a couple of weeks ago with Leadpoet, $TAO subnet 71. What initially caught my attention was the team. To me, they represent what a Bittensor-first team should look like. They're deeply committed to the ecosystem, they execute quickly, and, most importantly, they seem to understand that in the end none of that matters if you don't build a product customers actually want. The product appears to be working really well. Winning the OKX product competition and attracting an inbound pilot with Dropbox are the latest two independent signals that suggest they're solving a real problem for enterprise sales teams. The opportunity they're pursuing is also enormous. Enterprise sales is a market worth billions, and if Leadpoet continues executing the way it has so far, I genuinely believe they have a realistic path to building an eight-figure revenue business next year. And the best part here is that all of that value ultimately flows back into the token. I've also spent quite a bit of time talking with Gavin over the past few weeks and months. Those conversations gave me a very similar feeling about Leadpoet to the one I had with Score when talking with Max. I don't make that comparison lightly. It's great to see Leadpoet finally getting the attention it deserves, and the recent price action reflects that. Although, if I'm being completely honest, I would have loved one more dip to accumulate a bigger position, and I know I'm not the only one thinking that.

• 
  Brandon (@BJohnsonxAR) reported 10 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport I’m having issues logging in. When I try to login it’s making me sign up when I already have a paid account. This is happening on both the app and my browser. @Dropbox

• 
  grey (@w3b3grey) reported 12 minutes ago

  If you are like me and you wondering, where my IDENTITY PEM FILE is on @flop_labs , I gat you; here is how to find it identity.pem is already saved automatically; the init command writes it to your project folder the moment you run it (typically right in technocore-did-starter/identity.pem). You don't need to do anything extra for it to exist. What "saving" really means here is backing it up safely, since if this file is lost, your DID is unrecoverable (the guide's troubleshooting table says exactly that: "there is no central DID recovery service"). 1. Confirm it's there ls -la ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 2. Back it up to a second location — copy it somewhere other than the working folder, e.g. an external encrypted drive or a password manager that supports file attachments (1Password, Bitwarden both do this): cp ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem ~/Desktop/identity-backup.pem Then move that copy off your main disk (external drive, encrypted USB, etc.) rather than leaving a second copy sitting in ~/Desktop long-term. 3. Lock down file permissions so only your user account can read it: chmod 600 ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 4. What NOT to do with it Don't upload it to GitHub, Google Drive, iCloud Drive, Dropbox, or any synced/cloud folder in plaintext. Don't email it to yourself or paste it into a chat (including this one). Don't commit it to *** , the guide's Path B steps even have you run *** ls-files "*.pem" "*.key" before committing specifically to catch this. 5. Remember the passphrase separately from the file The .pem is encrypted, but it's useless without the passphrase you set during init. Store that passphrase somewhere separate from the .pem backup itself (a password manager entry, not a text file sitting next to the key), so a single leaked backup doesn't hand over both pieces at once. NOTE - If you lose either the file or the passphrase, per the guide, there's no recovery; you'd have to run init again and get a brand new DID.

• 
  Invest Like the Best (@InvestLikeBest) reported 15 minutes ago

  Ben Thompson's two laws of consumer tech: 1) Consumers do not want to pay for software 2) Consumers do not care about being productive. "We went through this in early SaaS. The canonical company for this is Dropbox. They had to rebuild the whole thing and realize the only way we're going to make money is by selling to companies. You literally had OpenAI replaying the Dropbox story, but at like 100x the size. We're going to sell subscriptions to consumers. And they did. They sold a lot, but they didn't sell enough. If you're going to be in the consumer market, you have to be doing advertising. If they had leaned into advertising immediately, as soon as ChatGPT was a hit, I think they would have a great ad product right now. I think Google would be in much bigger trouble. I think Meta would be in much bigger trouble. Charging people money is hard. Giving people things for free is easy. And it's very frustrating that OpenAI did not pursue this sooner."

• 
  Matt Uribe (@MattUribe) reported 20 minutes ago

  I can't get my @bot to login to @dropbox . Anyone else having that issue. It's kind of a big deal for what I am trying to set up with my team. No matter what, it says too many attempts when I try using chrome on my bots screen. The plugin has no place to authenticate. Also I wish I could sign an email login to each bot. Seems we can only link one for the team using outlook. I guess that's why it beta. :)

• 
  Sridhar Katakam (@srikat) reported 22 minutes ago

  @YannDecoopman How about putting the vault in Dropbox? Same problem as syncing with iCloud?

• 
  Matt Mazur (@mhmazur) reported 22 minutes ago

  Day 2 of Claude autonomously shipping to my SaaS, including, for the first time, all night while I slept: The first day I had the hourly routine that kicked off this process end at 8pm so that if anything went awry, it could @ me in Slack and I'd quickly see the notification and dig in. The first day went smoothly, so I let it continue working overnight last night: every hour it would look for a small, safe change to make, ship it to ****, and monitor server logs and Sentry to make sure everything went well. A few other process improvements: - It now creates a PR for every change and links to it from its Slack summaries - Previously I only allowed it to make changes in 3 files max, but sometimes it identified the same issue spread across multiple locations, so it would have to spread that work over several hours; I bumped the limit to 8 files. - If I have uncommitted changes in main, it no longer blocks Claude's work; it moves them to a separate branch - Added a mandatory security review before pushing to ****. For these simple changes it's not that necessary, but it will be important for larger projects in the future. Specifically, I told it to run the default /security-review skill and if it flagged anything, to halt everything and wait for me to review. - Ran into a slight issue one hour where it ran that skill, the security review passed, and then it did nothing. I asked Claude to investigate, and it discovered it had run the skill in its main context window, which confused it into thinking its only job was the security review. It changed the process so the security review happens in a subagent, keeping the context window clean, which fixed things. - I asked it to maintain a ledger of things it needs me to do and to ping me every 24 hours if I haven't knocked them out. More and more, the agent is giving me things to do. - I told it to adopt the tone of TARS from Interstellar in its Slack updates going forward, cause why not. Here's a list of improvements it made on day 2: 1. Return 404s for bad case-study URLs 2. Extended the 404 fix site-wide 3. Removed stray code leaking into HTML 4. Fixed broken citation example in docs 5. Fixed wrong URL in sharing docs 6. Corrected false free-plan claim 7. Removed duplicate HTML attributes 8. Fixed dead links in embed docs 9. Fixed garbled copy on two pages 10. Pointed "paid plans" link at pricing 11. Added missing alt text to logo 12. Corrected a misleading code comment 13. Upgraded insecure links to HTTPS 14. Replaced dead testimonial link 15. Fixed broken example in Dropbox docs 16. Fixed awkward grammar on comparison page 17. Fixed reversed table of contents 18. Fixed missing Show More button 19. Matched nav label to its section 20. Corrected outdated visibility docs claim 21. Removed obsolete step from setup docs These can be categorized as: support-doc accuracy fixes (7), functional bug fixes (4), broken or insecure links (3), copy improvements (3), invalid markup (2), accessibility (1), and code hygiene (1). Excited to expand the scope of things I allow it to work on, but am going to wait until next week to ensure the current process is robust.

• 
  Bruce Perry (@bhrperry) reported 23 minutes ago

  @Levi_Borovychok Thumb drives can be cheap, but the cheap ones are often slow. It's worth thinking about where cloud storage is done. I believe Dropbox will let you store your files in the EU.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 26 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.

• 
  siamkidd (@SiamKidd) reported 27 minutes ago

  Now the dust has settled with the SN24 Quasar debacle, I thought I'd share some info which would shine a slightly more positive light on the Quasar team. A few weeks ago, they approached DSV to raise $280k. They said they had big developments, some breakthroughs with a new model and that they needed capital for the training run. At the time, bear in mind that their alpha was strong, they were largely in good favour of the community and Const was still a firm backer/supporter of Quasar. And he held the keys. And they were to appear on Novelty Search soon. So it ticked a bunch of boxes. Anyway, we agreed, as we are always keen to help teams. But the issue was that I was away for 3 weeks and I never travel with crypto capability. And anytime any money moves around in DSV it's a right palava as we have 3rd party regulated custodians and have to jump through all sorts of hoops, (as social engineering with deepfakes is a very real threat). So we were able to jump through some hoops and ping over $104k to begin with and then the rest at a later date. Then we had those 2 days of madness at the beginning of the week and Quasar is no more. There's been all sorts of accusations and my view on all this is that there has just been terrible decision making, that's all. Announcements of announcements, over-exaggerating claims, giving a 24 hour deadline to offer proof, delivering it 2-3 days late and then walking back on some of the claims etc etc. I mark this down to simply their very young age and no business experience. But I don't think they are scammers. Just some very bright kids who's first experience of business is a subnet, which is like drinking water via a fire hydrant! And a pertinent piece of info behind that, is that they were very willing to return our funds. So as of today, that $104k has returned safely back to DSV. Their time as subnet owners is over and so there was a fear that we wouldn't get a penny back. But it wasn't the case. So do take this into consideration the next time you hear someone calling them scammers. With regards to Const, I think he too has also had a bit of an unfair ride with some of the comments I've seen. Const has had probably the roughest time with SN24 and is massively down from it all. He initially bought the slot from us, then reimbursed the team twice after 2 hacks, given them 6 figures in compute credits and more. So it really is fair that he keeps the slot. And I'm sure he'll find a good team for it. Also he is the founder of Bittensor. Not the CEO. He can't have detailed DD and optics on every single person and subnet in the ecosystem. And if he backs a subnet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to moon or be good forever. He's essentially the Federal Reserve Chairman and he has to craft policy changes to incentivise efficient growth in the ecosystem. He's the visionary and his role is to drive a path forward for Bittensor, which he is doing. And although I've highlighted personal frustrations that the chain is upgrading far too frequently...at least we are upgrading! That's one of the beauties of Bittensor. We will never be stagnant. And for the outsiders looking in, if it looks a bit chaotic, well, it is. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. You should have seen all the chaos and scandals of the companies when the NASDAQ launched! Or when ERC-20 contracts launched on Ethereum or the mountainous amount of scams on Solana with pumpfun. Hell, Bitcoin even hard forked into Bitcoin Cash due to so much in-fighting in 2017. And Ethereum suffered a $150m DAO hack in 2015/16 which forced a hard for there too. Hence why we now have ETC and ETH. So in comparison, everything is golden over here lol. In recent times, we've had/have: - SN4 partnering with Intel. - SN44 partnering with a NASDAQ PLC. - SN71 partnering with Dropbox. - SN18 getting huuuuge institutional clients. - SN107 co-authoring a research paper with OpenAI. - SN53 delivering Kimi K3 tokens cheaper than Openrouter or even Kimi. - SN95 being integrated within Hermes. - SN9 using green energy from SN110 to power their next big training run. - SN21 achieving Google Adwords campaign predictions that no company has ever achieved. - SN51 regularly doing 6 figure buyback and burns with revenue. And there's probably more that I've missed that I'm not aware of. Anywho, the future is bright! Have a good weekend all!

• 
  Naresh Mintri (@Yogamaestro) reported 28 minutes ago

  @IncomeTaxIndia Seems like e-filing portal overloaded. Taking long to register new taxpayer, buffering. Even dropbox menus not working. Plz look into it. Thanks.

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 29 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)

• 
  Luke Elin (@LukeElin) reported 32 minutes ago

  👤Shadow Adoption The pattern: Staff route around the sanctioned tool, and the organisation finds out afterwards. I watched this with unauthorised modems. Then with USB drives. Then with Dropbox. Then with entire SaaS platforms procured on a personal credit card and expensed as “software.” Now it is AI the same movie, new cast, better production values. The reason is always identical and always reasonable: the sanctioned tool is slower than the job requires. Shadow adoption is not an indiscipline problem. 👊 It is a feedback signal about the official tooling, arriving through the wrong channel. The tell: Compare the usage figures for your officially sanctioned tool against what your helpdesk volume implies people are actually doing. The gap is your shadow estate. FR FR

• 
  21Rates (@21RatesHQ) reported 33 minutes ago

  Bitcoin security isn't optional anymore. It's survival. The last few weeks: → Dropbox got hacked → Byte Federal (US Bitcoin ATM operator) had attackers target data on 58,000 customers, names, addresses, SSNs → A Trezor supplier leaked customer address data → The LA City Attorney's Office lost 7.7 TB of data, including police records → Coldcard found a flaw in its seed generation that could let attackers steal funds This isn't a string of bad luck. It's the new normal. KYC makes full privacy impossible in most places. But you still control part of your attack surface. Simple moves that actually help: • Use email aliases, a unique address per service • Same with phone numbers where you can • Treat every unexpected email, call, or text as hostile until proven otherwise Attackers combine data from multiple leaks to build your profile. The more your identifiers overlap across services, the easier that is. You don't need to be a victim first to start taking this seriously. What's one step you're taking this week to lock things down?

• 
  AiMind (@AIMind_Ai) reported 34 minutes ago

  3 websites replace 20 hours of googling when you build a home server. The hard part of self-hosting is not the hardware. A used HP EliteDesk and a wall-mounted NAS cost almost nothing. The hard part is not knowing what you can even run, or how to avoid breaking the system on the first command. The first keeps a catalogue of self-hosted alternatives. Look up a replacement for Google Photos, Dropbox, or Notion, and you see what already exists, how many GitHub stars it has, and whether it is still alive. Plus a weekly digest of what shipped. The second lets you run any Linux distro straight in the browser. Arch, Debian, Alpine, Bazzite. Click once, and you are inside a live system, with no evening lost to a USB stick and a real install. The third handles the worst part. Install scripts for Proxmox: Immich, Jellyfin, Vaultwarden, AdGuard, Nginx Proxy Manager. Paste one line into the console and the container comes up on its own. Immich shows 17,735 installs; Docker 36,408. Each of those services used to cost an evening of documentation and three Stack Overflow tabs. Now it is one command. The hardware takes an hour to buy. These 3 bookmarks save you a month. Names in the replies.

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 34 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

• 
  Mohamed irfan (@heyIrfan) reported 35 minutes ago

  The Marketing Strategy That Actually Works Most people make the same mistake when building a product: They try to sell before they prove that they can solve a real problem. Think about companies like Google and Amazon. They didn't start by saying "Give us your money, and we'll make you rich." They solved problems people already had. That's the foundation of good marketing Don't start with selling. Start with solving. 1. Solve a real problem When you're building something, your product will always look amazing to you. Your idea feels perfect because you built it. But that doesn't mean the market wants it. The only way to find out is to Talk to real users. Understand their problems. Find out what they're currently doing. See whether your product actually makes their life easier. Don't assume your idea is valuable. Let the users prove it. 2. Give value before asking for money Don't immediately push your product. Give people something useful. Your solution should help them Save time. Save money. Reduce effort. Solve a painful problem. If you genuinely create value, selling becomes much easier. You're no longer saying "Please buy my product." You're saying "This solves a problem you already have." That's a completely different conversation. 3. Don't compete only on features Your competitor has 10 features. You build 15. Then they build 20. And now you're stuck in an endless feature race. Instead, compete on value. Ask: "How much better can I solve the user's problem?" The differentiation shouldn't just be "We have more features." It should be: "We create more value for the customer." 4. Let people try before they buy Give users a way to experience your product. Especially with AI products, you don't necessarily need to give everything away for free. Give enough access for them to understand the value, while keeping usage manageable. Then collect feedback. But don't blindly follow every piece of feedback. If someone says: "Change the button color." That doesn't necessarily mean your product needs to change. Look for feedback about the actual problem and experience. 5. Don't forget the people who already showed interest Someone visited your website. Someone signed up. Someone tried your product. Someone talked to you. Those people are valuable. Don't immediately try to sell to them. Talk to them. Understand why they came. Understand what they liked. Understand what stopped them. And if they leave, ask why. Because the person who leaves may know something you don't. They might reveal the hidden problem that helps you improve the product. 6. Price based on value Don't blindly make your product extremely expensive. And don't make it extremely cheap either. Your price should be: Affordable for the customer + sustainable for your business. Being cheaper than competitors can help, but price alone shouldn't be your strategy. If your product saves a company $1,000 every month, paying you $100 can feel like a great deal. That's because the customer isn't really buying software. They're buying the value your software creates. Look at Google Drive Google Drive is a simple example of value-first thinking. The problem: We need to store files. We could keep everything on a pen drive. But then we have to: Carry the device. Manage files manually. Worry about losing it. Move files between devices. Share files manually. Google Drive makes this much easier. Your files are stored online. You can access them from different devices. You can share a link. You can control whether someone can view, comment, or edit. And you don't have to build your own storage system. There are competitors too: Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive, and others. So Google Drive isn't valuable simply because "it stores files." It's valuable because it solves the bigger problem around storing, accessing, managing, and sharing files. And Google gives users a free amount of storage so they can experience the product. You can try it. You can upload files. You can share them. You can experience the features. Then eventually you may reach the storage limit and think: "This is actually useful. I don't want to delete my files. I'll pay for more storage." That's the important part. They didn't need to convince you with a sales pitch. They let you experience the value. And once you experience real value, paying becomes an easy decision. The strategy is simple: Find a real problem → Solve it → Give value → Let users experience it → Talk to users → Improve the product → Then monetize. Don't sell first. Create value first. Because when you solve a real problem, the product starts selling itself.

• 
  Mansi 👩‍💻 (@MansiCodez) reported 35 minutes ago

  Solution of yesterday’s question: Design Google Photos: the part after the boxes “Hash it and put it in S3” fails the interview. Two phones compress the same sunset differently. Same photo. Two hashes. Two rows. You just built a worse Dropbox. The system needs three IDs, not one. client_upload_id — generated on the device before the first byte moves content_hash — hash of the exact bytes you received asset_id — the thing the user sees in the library Uploads are sessions. Library entries are assets. Blobs are renditions. If you collapse those into one key, retries, edits, and shared albums all collide. 1. Retries must be idempotent on the client, not on the filename Phone goes offline mid-flight with 612 shots, 40 already half-uploaded. Each photo gets a client_upload_id the moment it enters the queue. Chunks are uploaded against that ID. Commit is PUT /uploads/{id}/complete. Same ID + same bytes → same session. Server returns the existing asset. Late packet after commit is a no-op. Filename + timestamp is not an ID. Camera roll and AirDrop will mint two. 2. Exact dupes are content-addressed. Near-dupes are reconciled. After commit: look up sha256(bytes) if it already exists for that user (or the shared album’s owner set), attach the new upload to the existing asset_id do not create a second photo The 28 shared “Goa 2026” shots that are almost-but-not-quite the library copies will miss on sha256. That is expected. Run a cheap perceptual hash (pHash / dHash) + capture time + camera model from EXIF. If distance is tiny and captured within a few seconds, mark as near_duplicate_of and do not show two tiles. Keep both blobs if you must; hide one in the UI. Two devices, two compressions, one photo in the grid. 3. The library is a set of assets + tombstones. Not last-write-wins. Delete in Delhi must beat a pending upload in Mumbai. Every mutation carries: asset_id op: upsert | delete | restore actor_id (device or user) logical_ts (per-actor Lamport or hybrid logical clock) A deleted asset gets a tombstone that outlives the pending queue. When the flight-mode phone finally flushes those 40 half-uploads, the server sees: upload commit for an asset that already has a newer delete → commit the blob if you want, do not resurrect the tile. Refresh in Mumbai cannot show a photo Delhi just deleted, because the change feed is “tombstone wins over delayed create,” not “whoever wrote last.” 4. Shared albums are references, not copies Partner adds 28 photos to Goa 2026. The album stores {asset_id, added_by, added_ts} — not a second blob, not a second library row. Adds and removes are a small CRDT: add(asset, actor, ts) remove(asset, actor, ts) Two devices adding the same asset = one membership row. Phone sync finishing a second later cannot wipe the partner’s 28 photos, because there is no “replace the whole album document.” Last-write-wins on the album JSON is how photos vanish. 5. An edit is a new rendition, not a new photo and not an overwrite User crops + filters while the original is still processing. Rules: original blob is immutable edit creates rendition_id with parent_asset_id library still shows one asset “current view” pointer moves to the latest rendition history is a list of renditions / edit ops, not 12 full-resolution copies by default If you overwrite the original, face clustering and search lose their source. If you mint a new asset, the user now has original + edit as two photos. Both are wrong. Storage stays sane because you store: original (once) derived thumbs / display sizes lazily, keyed by asset_id + transform not every intermediate crop as a first-class photo 6. Upload path and ML path must not share a lock “Beach sunset with Priya” in minutes, not overnight, also not on the upload critical path. Commit path only: durable bytes asset row appear in library + album enqueue jobs Workers (thumbs, embeddings, face cluster, labels) are async. Search index is eventually consistent. The UI can show the photo immediately with “processing” on faces. If clustering blocks upload, you built a spinner, not Photos. Face identity hangs off asset_id, so an edit does not orphan Priya. The new rendition inherits the parent’s cluster and gets re-checked, not reset. 7. Sync is a checkpoint + change feed, not “download the library” Each device stores last_applied_ts. Server gives a stream: new assets, new renditions, album membership, tombstones. That is how 62,000 existing photos plus 612 offline shots plus 28 shared adds converge without a full rescan, and why a deleted photo does not climb out of another device’s queue. The one-line design Client-generated upload IDs stop retries from cloning. Content hashes stop exact clones. Perceptual reconcile stops “same sunset, different JPEG.” Tombstones stop resurrection. Album CRDTs stop last-write-wins from deleting the partner’s night. Edits are renditions under one asset. ML is a consumer of commit, never part of it. Boxes for S3, CDN, Kafka, Redis are table stakes. This is the part that decides whether you designed Google Photos or a photo-shaped file dump.

• 
  David Carcelli (@DavidCarcelli) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Dropbox dude if you guys don’t get of the Dave is requirement I’m done. I make music and I also use a cpap. I have no problem finding something better than this nonsense.

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 40 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🚩.

• 
  Tibor Hudik (@htunlogic) reported 42 minutes ago

  @theonejvo Wispr is a rounding error. Drive, Dropbox, iCloud all sell "encrypted" while they hold the key. Then you paste the pile into Grok so the agent can just handle it. You did not get compromised. You volunteered. That is not E2EE. That is a slogan you paid for.

• 
  Christopher Bailey (@LexBaileyAI) reported 47 minutes ago

  @TetraspaceWest At Fitbit we hired a half dozen people from Jawbone who brought everything cleverly hidden in Dropbox. They got prosecuted. Decade later, companies kaput but Fable found it, processed it and now it’s intermixed in various *** repos and Huggingface. Is nVidia now in trouble?

• 
  DAX : TV (@daxtv) reported 51 minutes ago

  @0x00_dev @ProtonMail have been using dropbox for years- never an issue - thought it might be smart to move to Proton Drive - but not now me thinks - hey ho :)

• 
  dreadnaught (@dr3dn0t) reported 53 minutes ago

  @priestessofdada this dude could have worked at dropbox, ibm, cnet, duolingo, etc. all of them offloaded people by that time in favor of AI. skids hadn't figured out what to do with AI yet because someone hadn't laid out instructions for them. by the time they were starting to flood social media, several companies had made some pretty large public facing fuckups due to their shift to AI, which seems to have slowed down mass adoption. now if we're gonna play the intentionally dishonest game of "AI took my exact job" then you are correct. every single company that did this crap ended up consolidating roles. so there is no exact position to fill.

• 
  Petty IT Guy (@pettyITguy) reported 53 minutes 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.

• 
  Jaclyn Forero | UGC & Paid Social Strategist (@jaclynforero) reported 54 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.

• 
  Rituraj (@RituWithAI) reported 54 minutes ago

  🚨 Someone built a tool that checks if your email is registered on 120+ sites — without the sites ever knowing someone checked. No notifications sent. No login attempts logged. No alerts triggered. Silent. Invisible. Complete. It's called Holehe. 16,800 GitHub stars. And the technique behind it is what makes it different from every other email OSINT tool. Here's how most email checkers work — and why they fail. Standard approach: try to log in with the email and a fake password. If the error says "wrong password" — the account exists. If it says "account not found" — it doesn't. Problem: every login attempt gets logged. Every failed attempt triggers security alerts on accounts with 2FA. Some platforms lock accounts after repeated failed attempts. The target knows someone was checking. Holehe never attempts a login. Instead it uses the "forgot password" flow — the password reset mechanism that every platform exposes publicly. When you enter an email on a forgot password page, the platform has to check whether that email exists in its database. It tells you: "we sent a reset link" or "no account found." Holehe reads that response. Gets the answer. Never touches the login flow. Never triggers a security alert. Never logs an access attempt against the account. The platform confirms whether the email exists. The account owner never finds out anyone asked. Here's what 120+ platforms looks like in practice. Social media: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Pinterest, Tumblr, Reddit. Professional: LinkedIn, GitHub, Freelancer, Fiverr. Dating: Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid, Badoo, Happn. Entertainment: Spotify, Netflix, Twitch, Steam, Epic Games, Deezer. Shopping: Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Zalando, AliExpress. Services: Airbnb, Uber, PayPal, Dropbox, Adobe. And 90+ more. Every registration checked silently. Here's the use case that makes people share this. Run your own email address. See every platform that comes back positive. Then run an email address you gave to a company that claimed they'd never share it. See if it's registered on data broker sites and marketing platforms you never signed up for. See where your email has been sold or leaked to. Here's what investigators actually use it for. Journalists verifying whether a source's claimed identity matches their digital footprint. Security researchers auditing their own exposure before a public disclosure. HR teams verifying whether candidate profiles match claimed backgrounds. And the obvious: anyone who needs to know whether a specific email address belongs to a real active person — without alerting that person. Here's the wildest part. It runs async — all 120+ platforms checked simultaneously. Results in seconds. And it exports clean JSON or CSV for integration into larger OSINT pipelines. Pair it with Blackbird (which takes the confirmed email and finds linked profiles), Sherlock (which takes usernames found in those profiles and searches 400+ platforms), and Maigret (which builds the full dossier) — and you have a complete four-tool OSINT pipeline from a single email address. One command to instal. Run it on your own email first. 16.8K GitHub stars. 1.7K forks. MIT License. 100% Open Source. GitHub link in the comments 👇

• 
  GHOST 🌙 (@ghosstty_) reported 56 minutes ago

  OPUS 5 + HIGGSFIELD CAN TURN A 6-QUESTION FORM INTO A $35K WEBSITE. IN ONE SESSION. FOR $4 IN TOKENS. no mockup. no wireframe. no mood board. six answers from the client. that's the input. a live website is the output. here's the form. here's what each question does. and here's why agencies charge $35K for what this produces in one session. → QUESTION 1: "WHO IS THIS SITE FOR?" not "describe your target audience in 500 words." one sentence. "CFOs at mid-size SaaS companies looking to switch billing providers." this one answer sets the tone, the copy angle, the visual weight, and the CTA hierarchy. an agency runs a two-hour discovery call to get this. I get it in a google form on monday. → QUESTION 2: "WHAT SHOULD A VISITOR DO?" book a demo. buy the product. join the waitlist. one action. this kills scope creep before it starts. no "maybe we should also add a blog and a careers page." one page. one goal. one conversion. → QUESTION 3: "SHARE 3 SITES YOU LIKE AND SAY WHY." not "what's your brand aesthetic?" nobody can answer that. "I like stripe because it's clean. I like linear because of the motion. I like notion because it feels simple." three links. three reasons. that's the design system seed. → QUESTION 4: "WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM COMPETITORS?" one paragraph. sometimes one sentence. this becomes the headline. the subhead. the entire above-the-fold story. a copywriter would interview the founder for an hour. this question does it in 30 seconds. → QUESTION 5: "SEND YOUR LOGO, BRAND COLOURS, AND ANY EXISTING ASSETS." a dropbox link. a google drive folder. sometimes just three hex codes and a png. this grounds the design in reality. no inventing a brand from scratch. no "let's explore some directions." → QUESTION 6: "WHEN DO YOU NEED IT LIVE?" not a timeline negotiation. a date. "next friday." done. that's when it ships. → WHAT HAPPENS NEXT friday night. six answers go into the pipeline. Opus 5 takes the answers and builds. design system. responsive layout. copy. CMS. all from the spec those six answers created. Higgsfield generates the hero media. product shots. clips. matched to the brand. saturday I review. adjust. polish. sunday morning - walkthrough link in the client's inbox. → WHY THIS WORKS because $35K was never the cost of building a website. it was the cost of figuring out what to build. discovery calls. alignment meetings. three directions. two rejected. scope changes. revision rounds. all of that is just a slow, expensive way of answering six questions. I ask the questions upfront. the client answers in 10 minutes. the machine builds from the answers. $4 in tokens. one session. same site. the full system - the form, the pipeline, the stack, and the pricing model - is in the article below. reply "FORM" and follow me - I'll send you the full playbook.

• 
  Arthur Terrell Vaughn (@ArthurV36405381) reported 57 minutes ago

  @patmendoza6745 I know not of any of those specifications, but I still can’t figure out what the issue is with persistent memory, why can’t I just have a dropbox online that it can constantly access every single chat and conversation?